3 ms·

> Firefox, it turns out, has a built-in telemetry system that defaults to enable exactly the same behavior: changing your system, to suit their desires. An exa

> Firefox, it turns out, has a built-in telemetry system that defaults to enable exactly the same behavior: changing your system, to suit their desires. An example of the typical use of this system: say Mozilla wants to enable video hardware acceleration in Firefox but they don't know if bugs in video drivers or in Firefox will make crashing more frequent. So they enable hardware acceleration for 1% of users instead of 100% and compare the reported crash rate between the two to determine if it's ready to be pushed out universally.

betterunix2 8y ago
At some point in the next five-ten years we will see this "feature" abused. Maybe Mozilla will use it to "soften" commonly used ad blockers to enable "acceptable" ads for Firefox users. Maybe Mozilla will be hacked by some government that wants to enable MITM attacks against its citizens, and Normandy will make that happen. Or maybe Mozilla will just cooperate with the government trying to do so. You say it is "typically" used for benevolent purposes, but why should we trust Mozilla? Mozilla does not have a stellar history with this sort of thing and in my experience they do not take security as seriously as they should if we are to trust them with such a feature.
- Certhas 8y ago
  The level of paranoia throughout this thread is truly through the roof..... Mozilla has had several "PR nightmare" decisions that a vocal set of users didn't like, and sometimes were genuinely ill advised/bad/shitty. But as far as I can see they do not have a bad track record when it comes to security/privacy. Do you have any examples of actual serious security/privacy fuck ups by Mozilla/Firefox? I mean that stood up to scrutiny beyond the sensationalist headlines? Their defaults might not be your defaults, but they are even working on bringing Tor into mainstream Firefox. None of this means they are above criticism of course, but... context! The sum total of their actions points towards an organisation that has some internal problems but that is genuinely pursuing privacy and an open web as a goal for as many users as possible.
  - DoctorOetker 8y ago
    > Do you have any examples of actual serious security/privacy fuck ups by Mozilla/Firefox? Sadly I don't, but others argue they have top notch standard security practices like automated alerts etc. regarding certificate renewals...
  - rue 8y ago
    …This one? This one isn’t very privacy-friendly or open. And that raises all the previous questions again. Should they maybe have learned something about clandestinely fucking with people’s systems?
  - bscphil 8y ago
    > But as far as I can see they do not have a bad track record when it comes to security/privacy. Do you have any examples of actual serious security/privacy fuck ups by Mozilla/Firefox? I mean, they are currently shipping real actual ads on the new tab page that aren't blocked by ad blockers - and possibly can't be (there are limits to what WebExtensions can modify on Firefox internal pages). Sure, maybe your parent comment was exaggerating a little bit, but what if Mozilla instead starts inserting "privacy-friendly" "recommendations" into webpages in order to "enhance users' browsing experiences"? That doesn't sound at all far-fetched for the Mozilla we know today.
    - Certhas 8y ago
      Besides your claim not being true AFAIK tell [1](there are no ads on my new tab page, and as far as I can tell there was no incident of paid for content showing up on peoples new tab), how exactly would shipping ads be a privacy/security violation? This is exactly the sensationalist misrepresentation I was talking about. You don't like what they are doing, fine. Misrepresenting it as something that it's not is not fine. Besides: Mozilla is funded in large parts by having Google as the default search provider. This means they are funded by Google selling ads. Them starting up new revenue streams and getting away from that funding model would be a pro privacy step. [1] If you are referring to something else that I missed, feel free to enlighten me.
      - 8y ago

betterunix2 8y ago

At some point in the next five-ten years we will see this "feature" abused. Maybe Mozilla will use it to "soften" commonly used ad blockers to enable "acceptable" ads for Firefox users. Maybe Mozilla will be hacked by some government that wants to enable MITM attacks against its citizens, and Normandy will make that happen. Or maybe Mozilla will just cooperate with the government trying to do so. You say it is "typically" used for benevolent purposes, but why should we trust Mozilla? Mozilla does not have a stellar history with this sort of thing and in my experience they do not take security as seriously as they should if we are to trust them with such a feature.

Certhas 8y ago
The level of paranoia throughout this thread is truly through the roof..... Mozilla has had several "PR nightmare" decisions that a vocal set of users didn't like, and sometimes were genuinely ill advised/bad/shitty. But as far as I can see they do not have a bad track record when it comes to security/privacy. Do you have any examples of actual serious security/privacy fuck ups by Mozilla/Firefox? I mean that stood up to scrutiny beyond the sensationalist headlines? Their defaults might not be your defaults, but they are even working on bringing Tor into mainstream Firefox. None of this means they are above criticism of course, but... context! The sum total of their actions points towards an organisation that has some internal problems but that is genuinely pursuing privacy and an open web as a goal for as many users as possible.
- DoctorOetker 8y ago
  > Do you have any examples of actual serious security/privacy fuck ups by Mozilla/Firefox? Sadly I don't, but others argue they have top notch standard security practices like automated alerts etc. regarding certificate renewals...
- rue 8y ago
  …This one? This one isn’t very privacy-friendly or open. And that raises all the previous questions again. Should they maybe have learned something about clandestinely fucking with people’s systems?
- bscphil 8y ago
  > But as far as I can see they do not have a bad track record when it comes to security/privacy. Do you have any examples of actual serious security/privacy fuck ups by Mozilla/Firefox? I mean, they are currently shipping real actual ads on the new tab page that aren't blocked by ad blockers - and possibly can't be (there are limits to what WebExtensions can modify on Firefox internal pages). Sure, maybe your parent comment was exaggerating a little bit, but what if Mozilla instead starts inserting "privacy-friendly" "recommendations" into webpages in order to "enhance users' browsing experiences"? That doesn't sound at all far-fetched for the Mozilla we know today.
  - Certhas 8y ago
    Besides your claim not being true AFAIK tell [1](there are no ads on my new tab page, and as far as I can tell there was no incident of paid for content showing up on peoples new tab), how exactly would shipping ads be a privacy/security violation? This is exactly the sensationalist misrepresentation I was talking about. You don't like what they are doing, fine. Misrepresenting it as something that it's not is not fine. Besides: Mozilla is funded in large parts by having Google as the default search provider. This means they are funded by Google selling ads. Them starting up new revenue streams and getting away from that funding model would be a pro privacy step. [1] If you are referring to something else that I missed, feel free to enlighten me.
    - 8y ago