10 ms·

Facebook Portal – Privacy review

176 points by MrsPeaches 7y ago

FussyZeus 7y ago
Saw an advertisement for this in a theater some months back. The wife and I turned to each other and said "Hell no." She isn't even that security aware, it's just... why. What is this for? What problem does this solve? Our iPhones do this already without constant surveillance and probably have superior hardware. This feels much to me like Stadia did to Google: It's a company inserting itself into a position it didn't need to be. It's a solution in search of a problem. In the 90's this would've been pretty amazing, but in an era of Smartphones that more or less all support this already with multiple apps, who is this for? Why would you have it? Not even going into the privacy aspects, it's basically a voice-controlled video phone.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  This is for video conferencing users that are not tech literate. This is something I would get for my grandmother, or my wife's grandmother, instead of an iPhone for video conferencing. If it was not offered by Facebook. I would trust Mozilla (perhaps partnered with the EFF) or Apple to offer such a product if they would charge for quality hardware, reliable infra, and long term support. Sell your trust as the feature.
  - namdnay 7y ago
    Exactly. The ads themselves are always about the grandparent-grandchildren relationship
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    > This is for video conferencing users that are not tech literate. So why does it increasingly feel like privacy and security are reserved for those who can afford it and/or know how to do it themselves? Why is every poor person who doesn't have the time to learn technology basically hung out to dry in terms of data protection?
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Because regulation is lagging. Call your congressperson (US-centric advice).
- marsRoverDev 7y ago
  I would not go so far as to assume iPhones do not perform surveillance. What Tim Cook says is one thing, what the national security letter they've received says is another.
  - Nextgrid 7y ago
    Surveillance limited to NSL-targeted people as an exception is still better than global surveillance for everyone as part of their business model.
- dessant 7y ago
  Stadia is a dream come true for Google. Collecting all that personal data at scale about how people interact with virtual environments and how they react to certain situations will give them an unprecedented look into human nature. Ads and product placements is AAA games is also fairly untapped territory, this is why I'm doubtful that Google will give up on this opportunity and shut down Stadia, as some people have predicted.
  - jmiskovic 7y ago
    Speaking of product placement in games, I also find it untapped and potentially huge market, not just in AAA games. I mean, if there's a car in the game, why not make it Renault to sponsor development? It seems vastly better than obnoxious ad banners or freemium whale hunting. Is there anything morally problematic with it?
    - disgruntledphd2 7y ago
      Transaction costs, mostly. It's hard to connect developers and advertisers at scale. It's also difficult technically, does every car in a game need to look the same now? Like, I totally think someone could make money from this, but it's unlikely to be as profitable as whale-hunting so it probably won't happen for a while.
the-dude 7y ago
We all know what product-market fit is. Portal is an example of bad company-product fit.
- wmf 7y ago
  A very interesting point. Nobody has any complaints about the Portal itself, just the fact that it's from Facebook. If a different company had come out with it... let's face it, that company would be swallowed by Google/Amazon/Facebook/MS sooner or later.
dpcan 7y ago
I cannot even think of a single person in any of my networks of people who would buy this and put it in their home. It has "hell no" written all over it. It's almost arrogant or bizarre that they would try to launch such a product given how people feel about Facebook and privacy. I suppose it's simply to satisfy shareholders who think Facebook needs to compete in this market???? It's the Zune of the Living-Room Assistant space in my opinion.
- tcd 7y ago
  People have purchased - and installed - Google Home (and Mini's) and Alexa's in their homes. They think they're "cute", and offer a valuable service to them. They are a microphone controlled by data raping giants. People use "Assistants" and enable full tracking technologies on their devices ("See how great it is Google has your every location on a map for the last decade"). People have not only accepted but embraced a full surveillance and tracking society; even if YOU don't accept it, you're part of it, people may add your contact to their phone that will be gobbled up in seconds by Facebook/Google/et al. People don't care. End of story.
  - nannal 7y ago
    They don't need to deduce anything, I'm already doing that when I visit the bathroom.
  - danShumway 7y ago
    I don't think it is. The difference is that Gmail/Amazon aren't hated the same way as Facebook is. People aren't smart about surveillance, they're not smart enough to realize that giving Instagram access to their phone is a bad idea. But, there are 2 perfectly capable home assistants on the market today that (right or wrong) aren't part of the same consumer-level narrative about privacy, and people like simple, straightforward, black-and-white narratives, like "Facebook cameras in your house are watching your child so that targeted ads can turn them into a nazi." That's a simple story, it's easy to remember and think about. Even ordinary, privacy-uneducated users like that story. It's totally feasible to me that this device will flop due to privacy concerns. Scanning around quickly online, I can't see a single positive review (even from mainstream publications) that doesn't end with, "but of course Facebook is evil and you'd have to be stupid to trust them with a camera in your house." I suspect Facebook just lost the narrative on this. They should have called it "Instagram Portal", and then the consumer situation would be completely different. Most of my siblings have Alexa devices in their house. It's a privacy nightmare, but they don't care. Even so, none of them would be dumb enough to buy a Facebook portal. It's not even a sacrifice -- Alexa/Google work with more devices and have more features.
sojmq 7y ago
Imagine giving your money to the Mozilla Corporation so they improve Firefox and they instead spend it on hiring copywriters for this girly blog.
- iuguy 7y ago
  I'm glad it's not just me. I looked at this and thought, "What the f*ck am I reading?" Is it a review? Is it telling me it's secure? It's good? It's bad? What are the 5 stars for? Should I buy it? Should I not? The page is just really badly put together and it's not really clear what I'm looking at.
  - sojmq 7y ago
    The best part is the pointless poll that then uses a dark pattern to collect your email address to spam you if you want to look at the results
    - SirYandi 7y ago
      You could say no thanks and view the results without giving an email
      - iuguy 7y ago
        You could, but in classic dark pattern style the colours are set up to draw you away from the "No Thanks" by matching the header background. Is there a page for this? I'm not sure whether to vote more or less creepy for what it's doing.
- netsharc 7y ago
  I read a comment a while ago that said, the Firefox Foundation has too much money and the executive committee has to look useful, so they've been coming up with stupid ideas for a few years now.
  - TheRealPomax 7y ago
earino 7y ago
This title is somewhat problematic. It makes it sound like the portal has "privacy not included" and yet that is the name of the blog. In fact, the Portal meets the Mozilla Foundation's "Minimum Security Standards". It gets a yes for encryption, security updates, strong password, manages vulnerabilities and a privacy policy! This is honestly kind of cruddy. You can feel however you want to feel about Facebook, but this is misleading.
- bogwog 7y ago
  I wonder what the consequences would be if after a few years Facebook just decided to disable E2E encryption and all those privacy features, and started collecting and using all that data for advertising purposes contrary to what they're claiming now? Another $5 billion fine? $10 billion? $100 billion? If enough people buy it, it could still be a profitable endeavor. Although I'm sure we can trust Facebook not to do that. They certainly deserve it /s
  - wolco 7y ago
    Just wait until they turn all photos public even ones deleted in the past. It is in their terms if they choose.
    - dmitriid 7y ago
      It was a programming mistake. Only a few accounts were affected. Inadvertently. Only 300 000 users affected. We're committed to privacy as always and in the coming year well take steps to make sure this never happens again. Our estimations were incomplete and a tad off, 270 million accounts affected, possibly more. Our users are at the center of all we do and will do everything in or power to protect their data.
      - sodosopa 7y ago
        “Only 300,000” You’re minimizing exposing information of enough people to populate most of Cincinnati, Ohio (301k)? Casting that as “only 300,000” is sickening.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
vngzs 7y ago
This could use a copyedit: > The question comes down to, does Facebook have your best interests at heart when it collects all the data this device is capabal [sic] of collecting on you.
dbtx 7y ago
> Even the Muppets can’t make Facebook Portal seem less creepy (linked article at FastCompany) [1] The Muppets pushing anything is and already was obscene (Kermit sipping Lipton meme, anyone?). Their first feature film, which is roughly as old as I am, revolved around Kermit following his dream and specifically not selling out his own species by making an advertisement. [1] https://www.fastcompany.com/90409198/even-the-muppets-cant-make-facebook-portal-seem-less-creepy https://www.fastcompany.com/90409198/even-the-muppets-cant-m...
- Zelphyr 7y ago
  Disney is definitely milking that acquisition for all its worth. Which is understandable if you read the history of Disney. Licensing for Mikey Mouse was a cash cow for them from the start. And if I'm being honest, I have to admit that I generally enjoy Disney content. However, every time I turn around now I'm seeing the Muppets shilling for some product or other. The Muppets are Disney's to do with as they please. I just wish they'd be more discerning and tasteful about who and what they license to. Pitching for anything coming out of Facebook sours the Muppets brand in my opinion.
ekianjo 7y ago
I wish Mozilla would stop criticizing everything that moves in the name of virtue and instead focus on making great products.
- SN76477 7y ago
  They are just following along with their mission statement. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/ Our mission: Keep the internet open and accessible to all.
  - warkdarrior 7y ago
    How does privacy fit into their mission of keeping the Internet open and accessible? It is an orthogonal issue.
    - frenchyatwork 7y ago
      Because some users value privacy, and if you can't access the web without interacting with Google or Facebook, then you have a problem.
recursivecaveat 7y ago
You know your brand is toxic when a generic/faceless version of your product would have been received better. Someone else here mentioned that it should have been "Instagram Portal", which I totally agree with, or maybe even better: "WhatsApp Portal". It seems like Facebook is trying to resuscitate its reputation by releasing this obviously invasive device and swearing on a stack of bibles that they won't touch the data. That's not how it works though. Once people realize you're an untrustworthy megacorp who's mining and selling data, there's nothing you can do to disprove it except get out of the data game altogether; the cat is already out of the bag.
- Zelphyr 7y ago
  I wonder how much they're interested in resuscitating their reputation with this product vs hoe much they're interested in targeting a demographic they may not have had a lot of in roads into. A demographic that has time and money to spend: the Baby Boomer generation and older. They're generally not technically savvy like the generations after them so Facebook built a device that all they have to do is talk to. Every time I see an ad for Facebook Portal it includes a person from that demographic. Meanwhile, Facebook gets to suck up all that valuable data they so lust for and start selling ads to the elderly Portal users. I thought it was bad that my parents friends are falling for scams and buying too much stuff on QVC. I don't think they stand a chance at Facebook targeting them. I hate that I'm so cynical about this. I really do. But Facebook has proven time and again all they care about is our data to sell to advertisers. So I can't help but see any new products of theirs through that lens.
- YourMatt 7y ago
  I don't think a generic version would have ever caught my attention at all. I'd think Instagram's jumped the shark if they branded it with that. Like, that would just sound like a photo frame that only shows IG posts or something; I'd roll my eyes and move on. I don't know anything about WhatsApp other than people were hacked or something. For non-tech folks, I think the Facebook brand great. They chat with friends and family with Facebook messenger. This must be where they can make video calls to those same people. You get it just by seeing the name and the product together.
yalogin 7y ago
I don’t get what this is supposed to convey. The post has nothing of substance, takes a shot at Facebook but seems to immediately absolve it, more so with a really shallow security and privacy requirements list. This speaks more about Mozilla than Facebook. They can do a lot better in what ever it is they are trying to do. At the very least explain what the post is intended to do first.
- TheRealPomax 7y ago
  You mean like in https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/about/why https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/about/w..., which you get to from "about the guide"?
KaiserPro 7y ago
The concept is great, a human-usable video conferencing system that doesn't suck massive balls. As for the privacy, that's more nuanced. In terms of thirdparty access/security, its almost certainly more secure than the traditional suppliers(I'm looking at your authentication cisco...) The nitty gritty is data collection by the company it's self. Thats harder. If your VC system uses android under the hood, then you have no privacy at all. Your data is funnelled to google at a minimum, some app vendors, and the company that made it. Apple, its held in many secret silos in apple land, and not even apple knows which team has what data. Facebook, now, they need a hardware platform, and this is the first step to getting there. If they were clever, they'd be prostrating themselves demonstrating that they are reformed, that they are full of trust and junk. But as they are still clinging to the "its not our job to police the myriad of crap people advertise on our site", I don't think they understand. This kind of pressure should force a change, as facebook are publicly traded. The problem is that tech journalism isn't really journalism. Its unquestionably adding breathless hot takes to PR, or if you've been burnt, unfailingly shitting on every product made by said company.
povadova 7y ago
All nerds, find now positive about Facebook's privacy violation and give me minus
wintorez 7y ago
Even George Orwell couldn't imagine people would pay the Big Brother to watch them.
qubex 7y ago
This... thing in your house is only one Privacy Terms & Conditions update away from tailoring ads to scare you into voting for whichever political candidate promises to not pursue Facebook with an AntiTrust lawsuit. If that isn’t terrifying, I don’t know what is.
chris_wot 7y ago
Despite the good review, there is no way in hell I would trust Facebook enough to use this in my home.
ryanisnan 7y ago
Honestly the UX of the privacy not included blog is pretty terrible. It is seems as if the blog is simultaneously sarcastic, shaming, and endorsing all at once. I would strongly suggest removing all of the unnecessary visual formatting, adding iconography to indicate Mozilla's stance on a topic, removing the personal tone from the articles, and overall restructuring the information to communicate the important information more swiftly and clearly.

176 points by MrsPeaches 7y ago

Saw an advertisement for this in a theater some months back. The wife and I turned to each other and said "Hell no." She isn't even that security aware, it's just... why. What is this for? What problem does this solve? Our iPhones do this already without constant surveillance and probably have superior hardware. This feels much to me like Stadia did to Google: It's a company inserting itself into a position it didn't need to be. It's a solution in search of a problem. In the 90's this would've been pretty amazing, but in an era of Smartphones that more or less all support this already with multiple apps, who is this for? Why would you have it? Not even going into the privacy aspects, it's basically a voice-controlled video phone.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 7y ago
This is for video conferencing users that are not tech literate. This is something I would get for my grandmother, or my wife's grandmother, instead of an iPhone for video conferencing. If it was not offered by Facebook. I would trust Mozilla (perhaps partnered with the EFF) or Apple to offer such a product if they would charge for quality hardware, reliable infra, and long term support. Sell your trust as the feature.
- namdnay 7y ago
  Exactly. The ads themselves are always about the grandparent-grandchildren relationship
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  > This is for video conferencing users that are not tech literate. So why does it increasingly feel like privacy and security are reserved for those who can afford it and/or know how to do it themselves? Why is every poor person who doesn't have the time to learn technology basically hung out to dry in terms of data protection?
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Because regulation is lagging. Call your congressperson (US-centric advice).
marsRoverDev 7y ago
I would not go so far as to assume iPhones do not perform surveillance. What Tim Cook says is one thing, what the national security letter they've received says is another.
- Nextgrid 7y ago
  Surveillance limited to NSL-targeted people as an exception is still better than global surveillance for everyone as part of their business model.
dessant 7y ago
Stadia is a dream come true for Google. Collecting all that personal data at scale about how people interact with virtual environments and how they react to certain situations will give them an unprecedented look into human nature. Ads and product placements is AAA games is also fairly untapped territory, this is why I'm doubtful that Google will give up on this opportunity and shut down Stadia, as some people have predicted.
- jmiskovic 7y ago
  Speaking of product placement in games, I also find it untapped and potentially huge market, not just in AAA games. I mean, if there's a car in the game, why not make it Renault to sponsor development? It seems vastly better than obnoxious ad banners or freemium whale hunting. Is there anything morally problematic with it?
  - disgruntledphd2 7y ago
    Transaction costs, mostly. It's hard to connect developers and advertisers at scale. It's also difficult technically, does every car in a game need to look the same now? Like, I totally think someone could make money from this, but it's unlikely to be as profitable as whale-hunting so it probably won't happen for a while.

the-dude 7y ago

We all know what product-market fit is. Portal is an example of bad company-product fit.

wmf 7y ago
A very interesting point. Nobody has any complaints about the Portal itself, just the fact that it's from Facebook. If a different company had come out with it... let's face it, that company would be swallowed by Google/Amazon/Facebook/MS sooner or later.

dpcan 7y ago

I cannot even think of a single person in any of my networks of people who would buy this and put it in their home. It has "hell no" written all over it. It's almost arrogant or bizarre that they would try to launch such a product given how people feel about Facebook and privacy. I suppose it's simply to satisfy shareholders who think Facebook needs to compete in this market???? It's the Zune of the Living-Room Assistant space in my opinion.

tcd 7y ago
People have purchased - and installed - Google Home (and Mini's) and Alexa's in their homes. They think they're "cute", and offer a valuable service to them. They are a microphone controlled by data raping giants. People use "Assistants" and enable full tracking technologies on their devices ("See how great it is Google has your every location on a map for the last decade"). People have not only accepted but embraced a full surveillance and tracking society; even if YOU don't accept it, you're part of it, people may add your contact to their phone that will be gobbled up in seconds by Facebook/Google/et al. People don't care. End of story.
- nannal 7y ago
  They don't need to deduce anything, I'm already doing that when I visit the bathroom.
- danShumway 7y ago
  I don't think it is. The difference is that Gmail/Amazon aren't hated the same way as Facebook is. People aren't smart about surveillance, they're not smart enough to realize that giving Instagram access to their phone is a bad idea. But, there are 2 perfectly capable home assistants on the market today that (right or wrong) aren't part of the same consumer-level narrative about privacy, and people like simple, straightforward, black-and-white narratives, like "Facebook cameras in your house are watching your child so that targeted ads can turn them into a nazi." That's a simple story, it's easy to remember and think about. Even ordinary, privacy-uneducated users like that story. It's totally feasible to me that this device will flop due to privacy concerns. Scanning around quickly online, I can't see a single positive review (even from mainstream publications) that doesn't end with, "but of course Facebook is evil and you'd have to be stupid to trust them with a camera in your house." I suspect Facebook just lost the narrative on this. They should have called it "Instagram Portal", and then the consumer situation would be completely different. Most of my siblings have Alexa devices in their house. It's a privacy nightmare, but they don't care. Even so, none of them would be dumb enough to buy a Facebook portal. It's not even a sacrifice -- Alexa/Google work with more devices and have more features.

sojmq 7y ago

Imagine giving your money to the Mozilla Corporation so they improve Firefox and they instead spend it on hiring copywriters for this girly blog.

iuguy 7y ago
I'm glad it's not just me. I looked at this and thought, "What the f*ck am I reading?" Is it a review? Is it telling me it's secure? It's good? It's bad? What are the 5 stars for? Should I buy it? Should I not? The page is just really badly put together and it's not really clear what I'm looking at.
- sojmq 7y ago
  The best part is the pointless poll that then uses a dark pattern to collect your email address to spam you if you want to look at the results
  - SirYandi 7y ago
    You could say no thanks and view the results without giving an email
    - iuguy 7y ago
      You could, but in classic dark pattern style the colours are set up to draw you away from the "No Thanks" by matching the header background. Is there a page for this? I'm not sure whether to vote more or less creepy for what it's doing.
netsharc 7y ago
I read a comment a while ago that said, the Firefox Foundation has too much money and the executive committee has to look useful, so they've been coming up with stupid ideas for a few years now.
- TheRealPomax 7y ago

earino 7y ago

This title is somewhat problematic. It makes it sound like the portal has "privacy not included" and yet that is the name of the blog. In fact, the Portal meets the Mozilla Foundation's "Minimum Security Standards". It gets a yes for encryption, security updates, strong password, manages vulnerabilities and a privacy policy! This is honestly kind of cruddy. You can feel however you want to feel about Facebook, but this is misleading.

bogwog 7y ago
I wonder what the consequences would be if after a few years Facebook just decided to disable E2E encryption and all those privacy features, and started collecting and using all that data for advertising purposes contrary to what they're claiming now? Another $5 billion fine? $10 billion? $100 billion? If enough people buy it, it could still be a profitable endeavor. Although I'm sure we can trust Facebook not to do that. They certainly deserve it /s
- wolco 7y ago
  Just wait until they turn all photos public even ones deleted in the past. It is in their terms if they choose.
  - dmitriid 7y ago
    It was a programming mistake. Only a few accounts were affected. Inadvertently. Only 300 000 users affected. We're committed to privacy as always and in the coming year well take steps to make sure this never happens again. Our estimations were incomplete and a tad off, 270 million accounts affected, possibly more. Our users are at the center of all we do and will do everything in or power to protect their data.
    - sodosopa 7y ago
      “Only 300,000” You’re minimizing exposing information of enough people to populate most of Cincinnati, Ohio (301k)? Casting that as “only 300,000” is sickening.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

vngzs 7y ago

This could use a copyedit: > The question comes down to, does Facebook have your best interests at heart when it collects all the data this device is capabal [sic] of collecting on you.

dbtx 7y ago

> Even the Muppets can’t make Facebook Portal seem less creepy (linked article at FastCompany) [1] The Muppets pushing anything is and already was obscene (Kermit sipping Lipton meme, anyone?). Their first feature film, which is roughly as old as I am, revolved around Kermit following his dream and specifically not selling out his own species by making an advertisement. [1] https://www.fastcompany.com/90409198/even-the-muppets-cant-make-facebook-portal-seem-less-creepy https://www.fastcompany.com/90409198/even-the-muppets-cant-m...

Zelphyr 7y ago
Disney is definitely milking that acquisition for all its worth. Which is understandable if you read the history of Disney. Licensing for Mikey Mouse was a cash cow for them from the start. And if I'm being honest, I have to admit that I generally enjoy Disney content. However, every time I turn around now I'm seeing the Muppets shilling for some product or other. The Muppets are Disney's to do with as they please. I just wish they'd be more discerning and tasteful about who and what they license to. Pitching for anything coming out of Facebook sours the Muppets brand in my opinion.

ekianjo 7y ago

I wish Mozilla would stop criticizing everything that moves in the name of virtue and instead focus on making great products.

SN76477 7y ago
They are just following along with their mission statement. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/ Our mission: Keep the internet open and accessible to all.
- warkdarrior 7y ago
  How does privacy fit into their mission of keeping the Internet open and accessible? It is an orthogonal issue.
  - frenchyatwork 7y ago
    Because some users value privacy, and if you can't access the web without interacting with Google or Facebook, then you have a problem.

recursivecaveat 7y ago

You know your brand is toxic when a generic/faceless version of your product would have been received better. Someone else here mentioned that it should have been "Instagram Portal", which I totally agree with, or maybe even better: "WhatsApp Portal". It seems like Facebook is trying to resuscitate its reputation by releasing this obviously invasive device and swearing on a stack of bibles that they won't touch the data. That's not how it works though. Once people realize you're an untrustworthy megacorp who's mining and selling data, there's nothing you can do to disprove it except get out of the data game altogether; the cat is already out of the bag.

Zelphyr 7y ago
I wonder how much they're interested in resuscitating their reputation with this product vs hoe much they're interested in targeting a demographic they may not have had a lot of in roads into. A demographic that has time and money to spend: the Baby Boomer generation and older. They're generally not technically savvy like the generations after them so Facebook built a device that all they have to do is talk to. Every time I see an ad for Facebook Portal it includes a person from that demographic. Meanwhile, Facebook gets to suck up all that valuable data they so lust for and start selling ads to the elderly Portal users. I thought it was bad that my parents friends are falling for scams and buying too much stuff on QVC. I don't think they stand a chance at Facebook targeting them. I hate that I'm so cynical about this. I really do. But Facebook has proven time and again all they care about is our data to sell to advertisers. So I can't help but see any new products of theirs through that lens.
YourMatt 7y ago
I don't think a generic version would have ever caught my attention at all. I'd think Instagram's jumped the shark if they branded it with that. Like, that would just sound like a photo frame that only shows IG posts or something; I'd roll my eyes and move on. I don't know anything about WhatsApp other than people were hacked or something. For non-tech folks, I think the Facebook brand great. They chat with friends and family with Facebook messenger. This must be where they can make video calls to those same people. You get it just by seeing the name and the product together.

yalogin 7y ago

I don’t get what this is supposed to convey. The post has nothing of substance, takes a shot at Facebook but seems to immediately absolve it, more so with a really shallow security and privacy requirements list. This speaks more about Mozilla than Facebook. They can do a lot better in what ever it is they are trying to do. At the very least explain what the post is intended to do first.

TheRealPomax 7y ago
You mean like in https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/about/why https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/about/w..., which you get to from "about the guide"?

KaiserPro 7y ago

The concept is great, a human-usable video conferencing system that doesn't suck massive balls. As for the privacy, that's more nuanced. In terms of thirdparty access/security, its almost certainly more secure than the traditional suppliers(I'm looking at your authentication cisco...) The nitty gritty is data collection by the company it's self. Thats harder. If your VC system uses android under the hood, then you have no privacy at all. Your data is funnelled to google at a minimum, some app vendors, and the company that made it. Apple, its held in many secret silos in apple land, and not even apple knows which team has what data. Facebook, now, they need a hardware platform, and this is the first step to getting there. If they were clever, they'd be prostrating themselves demonstrating that they are reformed, that they are full of trust and junk. But as they are still clinging to the "its not our job to police the myriad of crap people advertise on our site", I don't think they understand. This kind of pressure should force a change, as facebook are publicly traded. The problem is that tech journalism isn't really journalism. Its unquestionably adding breathless hot takes to PR, or if you've been burnt, unfailingly shitting on every product made by said company.

povadova 7y ago

All nerds, find now positive about Facebook's privacy violation and give me minus

wintorez 7y ago

Even George Orwell couldn't imagine people would pay the Big Brother to watch them.

qubex 7y ago

This... thing in your house is only one Privacy Terms & Conditions update away from tailoring ads to scare you into voting for whichever political candidate promises to not pursue Facebook with an AntiTrust lawsuit. If that isn’t terrifying, I don’t know what is.

chris_wot 7y ago

Despite the good review, there is no way in hell I would trust Facebook enough to use this in my home.

ryanisnan 7y ago

Honestly the UX of the privacy not included blog is pretty terrible. It is seems as if the blog is simultaneously sarcastic, shaming, and endorsing all at once. I would strongly suggest removing all of the unnecessary visual formatting, adding iconography to indicate Mozilla's stance on a topic, removing the personal tone from the articles, and overall restructuring the information to communicate the important information more swiftly and clearly.