4 ms·
Is there anything to suggest that this violated people's privacy? If not, I see no reason why privacy advocates should have a problem with it.
by agwa 8y ago
Is there anything to suggest that this violated people's privacy? If not, I see no reason why privacy advocates should have a problem with it.
- claudius 8y agoPhoning home by default, necessary to display such "snippets" of course violates people’s privacy. That this is done not to pointlessly wish a happy new year but with commercial motives makes it even worse.
- agwa 8y agoIt's already phoning home to retrieve vital security updates, without which your privacy would be at much greater risk than Mozilla learning that a certain IP address uses Firefox.
- tedunangst 8y agoPeople use privacy to also mean "you violated the sanctity of my mind by beaming propaganda onto my retinas".
- zaarn 8y agoI don't think that's a proper meaning for privacy. I consider privacy to be that it is my choice how much of my personal data I reveal to a third party not directly involved with any of the parties I am doing business with. Showing privacy-conserving ads doesn't violate what I consider privacy, some people might object to ads in general but there doesn't seem to be a better funding model (considering Mozilla doesn't want to continue being 90% funded by deals with search engines and donations being a drop in the bucket). Open Source needs to figure out a funding model and Mozilla seems to be making positive headway into the realm of privacy-sensitive ads. Google and Chromium on the other hand is making headway into privacy-violation ads.