3 ms·

I rather them focusing on hardening their own privacy instead of cherry picking issues at competitors.

Someone1234 8y ago
They have been focusing on privacy for the last several years and rolled out multiple improvements specifically in that area on the last year alone (e.g. Anti-Tracking Protection, DNS over HTTPS, HTTP Referrer limits, Container Tabs, etc). Plus products like Firefox Focus (essentially an in-private browser). If we're gatekeeping who is allowed to criticize Apple, perhaps it would be enlightening to give some examples of people or entities who attain a high enough level of moral purity to do so. If an organization like Mozilla fails to reach it, I just want to get a sense of where the bar is set.
- flukus 8y ago
  > If an organization like Mozilla fails to reach it, I just want to get a sense of where the bar is set. Telemetry that's not on by default would certainly be one measure, I don't know about apple but mozilla certainly fails. If they don't understand the need to gain consent before collecting statistics on their users then they don't understand privacy.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    Apple themselves does the same. Therefore the position is that doing something Apple does makes you unqualified to criticize Apple. That would by extension make Apple themselves unqualified to criticize Apple, which is a rather unusual bar. What I find curious about many comments in this thread is that few want to address the issue itself, but instead would rather either shoot the messenger or argue that even raising the issue is unacceptable. Why are people so opposed to discussing this and why is Mozilla's record or reputation even relevant here?
    - flukus 8y ago
      "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" we've got a pretty long history of having a higher expectation of the person/organisation doing the criticism and this is no exception. As for the actual criticism I'd agree with the blog, the fact that phones come with an advertiser ID at all is a sad sign of the state of our industry.
    - floatingatoll 8y ago
      It might be because the point stands up well to argument: - Should Apple do it? Yes. No downsides are apparent. - Will it help many users? Yes. Many users will benefit. - Is it a panacea? No. Rulebreaking apps will rulebreak. Thus the career detractors are forced to invoke unrelated topics to continue their press conferencing.
judge2020 8y ago
If Mozilla really, really cared about privacy then the default search engine would be no search engine. The first page you would get after installing would be a "choose your search engine" page, so people who want Google will have to choose to use Google, and people who want DDG will have to choose to use DDG. Having a default search at all is showing partiality to who gets to receive the browser information of a large portion of the user base.
- robryan 8y ago
  How would they fund their business?
bredren 8y ago
But it is working for Samsung so well.

They have been focusing on privacy for the last several years and rolled out multiple improvements specifically in that area on the last year alone (e.g. Anti-Tracking Protection, DNS over HTTPS, HTTP Referrer limits, Container Tabs, etc). Plus products like Firefox Focus (essentially an in-private browser). If we're gatekeeping who is allowed to criticize Apple, perhaps it would be enlightening to give some examples of people or entities who attain a high enough level of moral purity to do so. If an organization like Mozilla fails to reach it, I just want to get a sense of where the bar is set.

flukus 8y ago
> If an organization like Mozilla fails to reach it, I just want to get a sense of where the bar is set. Telemetry that's not on by default would certainly be one measure, I don't know about apple but mozilla certainly fails. If they don't understand the need to gain consent before collecting statistics on their users then they don't understand privacy.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  Apple themselves does the same. Therefore the position is that doing something Apple does makes you unqualified to criticize Apple. That would by extension make Apple themselves unqualified to criticize Apple, which is a rather unusual bar. What I find curious about many comments in this thread is that few want to address the issue itself, but instead would rather either shoot the messenger or argue that even raising the issue is unacceptable. Why are people so opposed to discussing this and why is Mozilla's record or reputation even relevant here?
  - flukus 8y ago
    "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" we've got a pretty long history of having a higher expectation of the person/organisation doing the criticism and this is no exception. As for the actual criticism I'd agree with the blog, the fact that phones come with an advertiser ID at all is a sad sign of the state of our industry.
  - floatingatoll 8y ago
    It might be because the point stands up well to argument: - Should Apple do it? Yes. No downsides are apparent. - Will it help many users? Yes. Many users will benefit. - Is it a panacea? No. Rulebreaking apps will rulebreak. Thus the career detractors are forced to invoke unrelated topics to continue their press conferencing.

judge2020 8y ago

If Mozilla really, really cared about privacy then the default search engine would be no search engine. The first page you would get after installing would be a "choose your search engine" page, so people who want Google will have to choose to use Google, and people who want DDG will have to choose to use DDG. Having a default search at all is showing partiality to who gets to receive the browser information of a large portion of the user base.

robryan 8y ago
How would they fund their business?

bredren 8y ago

But it is working for Samsung so well.