4 ms·

Yes, the same browser that sent the raw browsing history of a portion of users to a third party. Talk about tracking! >Users who receive a version of Firefox w

by lcao 7y ago

Yes, the same browser that sent the raw browsing history of a portion of users to a third party. Talk about tracking! >Users who receive a version of Firefox with Cliqz will have their browsing activity sent to Cliqz servers, including the URLs of pages they visit. https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-in-firefox/ https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-i...

jszymborski 7y ago
Damned if you disclose your responsible stewardship of user data, damned if you don't. > Less than one percent of users in Germany installing Firefox from our main download page will receive a version of Firefox with Cliqz recommendations enabled out of the box. > Cliqz does not build browsing profiles for individual users and discards the user’s IP address once the data is collected. > One of Mozilla’s core privacy principles is No Surprises: we will use and share data in ways that are transparent and benefit our users. That is why we are telling you about this today. We > We hope that users will appreciate the improved experience, but if users want to turn it off, they can always disable data collection or remove the Cliqz add-on entirely.
- jimmaswell 7y ago
  It was done to less than 1% of users so it's okay? Obviously Chrome is worse but this still sounds bad to me.
- sdoering 7y ago
  Sorry. If I want my data somewhere else I can stay with Chrome. I switched years ago because of performance reasons. Whenever I tried to switch back I felt stabbed in the back shortly thereafter by Mozilla.
  - JoshMnem 7y ago
    Chrome is much worse. It seems like chopping a leg off because someone stepped on a toe.
    - sdoering 7y ago
      With Chrome I do not expect privacy. With FF every time I trust them the fk me over. So - with Chrome I know what I am getting and I treat it as such. With FF I only wanted a Browser. I never aigned up for their (internal and external) advertising, Pocket stuff and other st like this. So no - because FF brands itself as a privacy option, I hold them to a different and much higher standard - and the fail every time.
- jodrellblank 7y ago
  https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/74vt08/psa_huber_burda_media_the_majority_owner_of_cliqz/ https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/74vt08/psa_huber_b... > "PSA: Huber Burda Media, the majority owner of Cliqz, which owns many media and digital brands, owns the computer magazine "Chip", its online platform offers "secure installers" which are used to distribute malware (adware)." and > "One interesting thing I've found on the Cliqz about page, is that they call themselves a "small startup". This is a lie since they're a sub division of Burda Media which is one of the biggest media companies in Europe. How can you trust a company if they even lie on their about page?" and the Booking.com snippet https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/abfdym/mozilla_on_firefoxs_bookingcom_snippet_it_was_not/ https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/abfdym/mozilla_on_... > "I skimmed the source code of the Cliqz extension back during the scandal and as far as I could tell it sent back enough information for it to be possible to identify and create profiles for quite many of the users. Now it is perfectly possible that Cliqz were honest and handled the sensitive data carefully (e.g. by throwing away IPs), but we have no way of knowing that." Remember 2006 when AOL search data was deliberately anonymized and made public, and then de-anonymized? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak Even if Cliqz do "throw away IPs" that's not enough for it to no longer be personally identifying. It says nothing about Cliqz throwing away the data. How long before Cliqz realizes they're sitting on a trove of "valuable" data and changes their policy so they do retrospectively build profiles of users, or sell out to Facebook? That's not responsible stewardship of data, and disclosing it on a blog page nobody read, just saying "it might happen to you, quietly and opt-out" is not responsible disclosure.
- jammygit 7y ago
  Cliqz has an interesting privacy stance, and a decent privacy policy. I don’t know if they are trustworthy or not, but I think the bad press against them has been unfair. Excerpt: To gain your trust we have open-sourced all of our front-end code (and hence everything that sends something from your computer). We know very few people will ever look into the code, but: you or everyone else could every time check that we’re honest. And hence we cannot hide anything. Excerpt: History and bookmarks are always processed only locally and never sent to us Excerpt No IP addresses collected https://cliqz.com/en/privacy-browser https://cliqz.com/en/privacy-browser
gowld 7y ago
Cliqz is an opt in feature for users who want it
sdoering 7y ago
Or Pocket. Or hyperlink auditing. Or this f... up with certificates lately. I could go on. My problem is that every time I wanted to return to ff, Mozilla f...ed Up again. I feel like I am between a rock and a hard place with ff and Chrome.
- zwkrt 7y ago
  The choice is so easy. Mozilla's main problem is manufactured outrage over some risky/mediocre product management, some bugs (never shipped a bug before?). Google's main problem is trying to remake the entire internet in their image, end-to-end, from optic nerve to server silicon. I'll choose the lesser of two evils, please.
  - sdoering 7y ago
    With Google's Chrome I know whom I give my privacy to. With Firefox I am one update away from being part of an experiment without my consent. I take the known evil every time.
    - freeopinion 7y ago
      I very much doubt that you know all the parties to whom you are constantly being sold by Google. You do realize that Google does not benefit from keeping your info to themselves, right?
      - SquareWheel 7y ago
        >You do realize that Google does not benefit from keeping your info to themselves, right? Of course they do. That's literally their business model, to use that data to serve more relevant ads. If they gave it to third parties then they would lose their biggest competitive advantage. And really, they couldn't be any more clear about it: https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/ https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/ >We do not sell your personal information to anyone. If you're going to suggest they are lying about it, then please provide some evidence to support that argument.

by lcao 7y ago

jszymborski 7y ago

Damned if you disclose your responsible stewardship of user data, damned if you don't. > Less than one percent of users in Germany installing Firefox from our main download page will receive a version of Firefox with Cliqz recommendations enabled out of the box. > Cliqz does not build browsing profiles for individual users and discards the user’s IP address once the data is collected. > One of Mozilla’s core privacy principles is No Surprises: we will use and share data in ways that are transparent and benefit our users. That is why we are telling you about this today. We > We hope that users will appreciate the improved experience, but if users want to turn it off, they can always disable data collection or remove the Cliqz add-on entirely.

jimmaswell 7y ago
It was done to less than 1% of users so it's okay? Obviously Chrome is worse but this still sounds bad to me.
sdoering 7y ago
Sorry. If I want my data somewhere else I can stay with Chrome. I switched years ago because of performance reasons. Whenever I tried to switch back I felt stabbed in the back shortly thereafter by Mozilla.
- JoshMnem 7y ago
  Chrome is much worse. It seems like chopping a leg off because someone stepped on a toe.
  - sdoering 7y ago
    With Chrome I do not expect privacy. With FF every time I trust them the fk me over. So - with Chrome I know what I am getting and I treat it as such. With FF I only wanted a Browser. I never aigned up for their (internal and external) advertising, Pocket stuff and other st like this. So no - because FF brands itself as a privacy option, I hold them to a different and much higher standard - and the fail every time.
jodrellblank 7y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/74vt08/psa_huber_burda_media_the_majority_owner_of_cliqz/ https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/74vt08/psa_huber_b... > "PSA: Huber Burda Media, the majority owner of Cliqz, which owns many media and digital brands, owns the computer magazine "Chip", its online platform offers "secure installers" which are used to distribute malware (adware)." and > "One interesting thing I've found on the Cliqz about page, is that they call themselves a "small startup". This is a lie since they're a sub division of Burda Media which is one of the biggest media companies in Europe. How can you trust a company if they even lie on their about page?" and the Booking.com snippet https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/abfdym/mozilla_on_firefoxs_bookingcom_snippet_it_was_not/ https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/abfdym/mozilla_on_... > "I skimmed the source code of the Cliqz extension back during the scandal and as far as I could tell it sent back enough information for it to be possible to identify and create profiles for quite many of the users. Now it is perfectly possible that Cliqz were honest and handled the sensitive data carefully (e.g. by throwing away IPs), but we have no way of knowing that." Remember 2006 when AOL search data was deliberately anonymized and made public, and then de-anonymized? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak Even if Cliqz do "throw away IPs" that's not enough for it to no longer be personally identifying. It says nothing about Cliqz throwing away the data. How long before Cliqz realizes they're sitting on a trove of "valuable" data and changes their policy so they do retrospectively build profiles of users, or sell out to Facebook? That's not responsible stewardship of data, and disclosing it on a blog page nobody read, just saying "it might happen to you, quietly and opt-out" is not responsible disclosure.
jammygit 7y ago
Cliqz has an interesting privacy stance, and a decent privacy policy. I don’t know if they are trustworthy or not, but I think the bad press against them has been unfair. Excerpt: To gain your trust we have open-sourced all of our front-end code (and hence everything that sends something from your computer). We know very few people will ever look into the code, but: you or everyone else could every time check that we’re honest. And hence we cannot hide anything. Excerpt: History and bookmarks are always processed only locally and never sent to us Excerpt No IP addresses collected https://cliqz.com/en/privacy-browser https://cliqz.com/en/privacy-browser

gowld 7y ago

Cliqz is an opt in feature for users who want it

sdoering 7y ago

Or Pocket. Or hyperlink auditing. Or this f... up with certificates lately. I could go on. My problem is that every time I wanted to return to ff, Mozilla f...ed Up again. I feel like I am between a rock and a hard place with ff and Chrome.

zwkrt 7y ago
The choice is so easy. Mozilla's main problem is manufactured outrage over some risky/mediocre product management, some bugs (never shipped a bug before?). Google's main problem is trying to remake the entire internet in their image, end-to-end, from optic nerve to server silicon. I'll choose the lesser of two evils, please.
- sdoering 7y ago
  With Google's Chrome I know whom I give my privacy to. With Firefox I am one update away from being part of an experiment without my consent. I take the known evil every time.
  - freeopinion 7y ago
    I very much doubt that you know all the parties to whom you are constantly being sold by Google. You do realize that Google does not benefit from keeping your info to themselves, right?
    - SquareWheel 7y ago
      >You do realize that Google does not benefit from keeping your info to themselves, right? Of course they do. That's literally their business model, to use that data to serve more relevant ads. If they gave it to third parties then they would lose their biggest competitive advantage. And really, they couldn't be any more clear about it: https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/ https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/ >We do not sell your personal information to anyone. If you're going to suggest they are lying about it, then please provide some evidence to support that argument.