8 ms·

This is literally, one among many reasons (ha!), why I use Firefox. Every other browser vendor is a for-profit entity, and as such will limit good ad-blocking m

This is literally, one among many reasons (ha!), why I use Firefox. Every other browser vendor is a for-profit entity, and as such will limit good ad-blocking measures as Safari and Chrome have done recently with their new "security" policies. This is also why I don't use a VPN I don't run (or certainly not one that hasn't been audited with a good reputation), and I certainly would never fucking dream of using a free VPN unless all the traffic over it is absolutely worthless. ... How many of these things install root certs where even after you've canceled your subscription you're still accepting their bullshit? On the other hand, this could make for a hilarious experiment using adversarial neural networks to troll the assholes mining data from the VPNs.

lstamour 7y ago
> ... How many of these things install root certs where even after you've canceled your subscription you're still accepting their bullshit? It does seem like a bit of a flaw that removing the app on iOS doesn't automatically remove the profile such apps install: https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT205347 https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT205347 I'm pretty sure Apple will remove the VPN profile, which is why leaving a root certificate seems dangerous for users who don't know what they're for. There can, of course, be legitimate uses for this tech. https://www.charlesproxy.com/documentation/ios/ https://www.charlesproxy.com/documentation/ios/ or maybe opting out of certificate transparency reports, but they do seem like edge cases.
- dwaite 7y ago
  > It does seem like a bit of a flaw that removing the app on iOS doesn't automatically remove the profile such apps install AFAIK only system apps can install profiles. These apps work by getting the user to install a separate profile via Safari. > I'm pretty sure Apple will remove the VPN profile, which is why leaving a root certificate seems dangerous for users who don't know what they're for. If these aren't enterprise profiles then Apple may not have an easy mechanism to block them (other than blocking their semantics). Apple has a ton of variants of profiles, I keep expecting them to deprecate swaths of types/installation methods to help this be more understandable.
  - lstamour 7y ago
    If Safari has a system back button to take me back to the app, it knows enough to include the “originating app” for the profile. Similarly it could create an association between the domain the profile is hosted on and the app. Finally, Apple could indeed change how profile installation works such that profiles need to be signed and associated with either an Enterprise account or a per-app developer account, to make deleting such apps-with-profiles in future more robust. Lastly, like privacy warnings, Apple could say that Certificate Owner has installed a root certificate to monitor all communications and let you opt out. That would be ideal, to deprecate existing methods and even more explicitly support app-based root certificates in their privacy warning flows.
TylerE 7y ago
Mozilla is a for profit entity with some history of selling out their users (Remember Pocket). The Mozilla foundation is a non-profit. The Mozilla Corporation is a for-profit entity with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.
- mintplant 7y ago
  The Mozilla Corporation is wholly owned by the Mozilla Foundation and bound by its charter. The split structure is an artifact of corpotations being better-understood legal entities than foundations, and thus easier to deal with in various situations (hiring, contracts, etc). See also the Signal Foundation and Signal Messenger, LLC.
- 101404 7y ago
  What happened with Pocket?
  - TylerE 7y ago
    It was forced into FF as a non-removable extension.
    - SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
      After Mozilla bought Pocket.
      - TylerE 7y ago
        No, two years after. The integration happened in 2015. The acquisition was not until 2017.
- jsjddbbwj 7y ago
  They have some history of selling out their users... by literally selling their history: 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...
3xblah 7y ago
"Every other browser vendor is a for-profit entity, ..." Not the one that authored the text-only browser I am typing this from. Whether Mozilla turns a profit or not makes little difference in this instance. Mozilla does not survive on donations from users. Its employees are not volunteers working for free to defend user privacy. Its generously compensated executives and staff need money from the online ad business, just like employees from the other browser vendors. If Mozilla stopped taking money from Google or some other online ad business partner, then Mozilla employees would lose their jobs. Maybe of interest: https://dustri.org/b/mozilla-is-still-screwing-around-with-privacy-in-firefox.html https://dustri.org/b/mozilla-is-still-screwing-around-with-p...
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  I think they're talking about browsers that actually implement most of the spec.
- SmartWa 7y ago
  Can you recommend one text-only browser?
  - freeAgent 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser)
  - 3xblah 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_(web_browser) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_(web_browser) Note I do not recommend using a text-only browser interactively for any sort of commercial or important online activity. I use it for recreational activities like reading HN and the websites posted here. I used lynx many years ago in the early 90's. After switching to links, I would never intentionally use lynx again. It amazes me that people still mention lynx when the topic of text-only browsers comes up. I would be shocked if these people who recommend it are using it as their browser on a daily basis for decades.
283627283637 7y ago
Firefox is like that really ugly flower that blooms once every hundred years, they leapfrog the competition briefly and then eventually degrade back to being crap for regular users. I'm aware of the technical politics around what causes this but that only really matters for people who choose browsers based on cyber politics. Quantum was good for six months, now we're back to the same situation where almost everyone outside the tech bubble is using Chrome. You'd think that maybe this would cause them to exercise some strategy, like rushing to conquer mobile since Chrome's mobile ui is trash, but nope. Hell, Brave of all things is doing better at mobile than Firefox.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Firefox mobile can't even render pages reliably. That matter more than the UI.
- ComodoHacker 7y ago
  >Quantum was good for six months, now we're back to the same situation where almost everyone outside the tech bubble is using Chrome. Did Quantum became worse or you're basically saying Mozilla is bad at marketing (and having huge vertically integrated ecosystem)?
  - testuser66 7y ago
    It's hard to move browsers permanently if you're not prepared. I moved to FF Quantom for a bit, but had to regularly open Chrome to get passwords etc. And the Chrome assholes removed the password export (or at least I could not for the life of me get it to work at the time) I ended up going back for a bit and added a password manager, and now I can move between browsers easily - but as I said, it's not always straightforward, especially for _most_ non-tech users.
    - ripdog 7y ago
      Firefox has a built in import of browser data from other browsers such as Chrome. Does this no longer work?
Angostura 7y ago
> Every other browser vendor is a for-profit entity, and as such will limit good ad-blocking measures as Safari I thought Safari introduced support for Content Blockers specifically to avoid ad blockers from phoning home and passing potentially sensitive information to the ad blocker's writer. Lots of people then got quite cross that their favourite blocker had been blocked.
- tomp 7y ago
  No, it was introduced so that Apple could hurt Google on iOS / mobile Safari without opening the can of worms that is browser extensions.
  - dannyw 7y ago
    Keep in mind that Apple gets paid a percentage of Google ad revenue made in Safari; just like how Mozila gets paid a percentage of Google ad revenue made in Firefox. Apple is hurting themselves too.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- jackewiehose 7y ago
  That is exactly the bullshit they want you to believe. Restricting your ability to install/modify software on your computer because bad software could harm you. You have been bamboozled.
  - madeofpalk 7y ago
    I think, especially given events that’ve transpired since, Apple was fairly justified in not giving third party developers unfettered access to web pages and network requests running through the browser. I am very glad that I can install an add blocker on my phone and I don’t have to trust that it’s not going to mine and sell my data. I haven’t been bamboozled, I’ve just made a different decision with a different set of trade offs than you.
  - 7y ago
jeltz 7y ago
Being a foundation does not entirely remove the incentives to do shady shit, it just reduces them a bit. Look at ISOC's sale of .org or for Mozilla when they gave Cliqz the browsing histories of a random sample of all German Firefox users.

lstamour 7y ago

> ... How many of these things install root certs where even after you've canceled your subscription you're still accepting their bullshit? It does seem like a bit of a flaw that removing the app on iOS doesn't automatically remove the profile such apps install: https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT205347 https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT205347 I'm pretty sure Apple will remove the VPN profile, which is why leaving a root certificate seems dangerous for users who don't know what they're for. There can, of course, be legitimate uses for this tech. https://www.charlesproxy.com/documentation/ios/ https://www.charlesproxy.com/documentation/ios/ or maybe opting out of certificate transparency reports, but they do seem like edge cases.

dwaite 7y ago
> It does seem like a bit of a flaw that removing the app on iOS doesn't automatically remove the profile such apps install AFAIK only system apps can install profiles. These apps work by getting the user to install a separate profile via Safari. > I'm pretty sure Apple will remove the VPN profile, which is why leaving a root certificate seems dangerous for users who don't know what they're for. If these aren't enterprise profiles then Apple may not have an easy mechanism to block them (other than blocking their semantics). Apple has a ton of variants of profiles, I keep expecting them to deprecate swaths of types/installation methods to help this be more understandable.
- lstamour 7y ago
  If Safari has a system back button to take me back to the app, it knows enough to include the “originating app” for the profile. Similarly it could create an association between the domain the profile is hosted on and the app. Finally, Apple could indeed change how profile installation works such that profiles need to be signed and associated with either an Enterprise account or a per-app developer account, to make deleting such apps-with-profiles in future more robust. Lastly, like privacy warnings, Apple could say that Certificate Owner has installed a root certificate to monitor all communications and let you opt out. That would be ideal, to deprecate existing methods and even more explicitly support app-based root certificates in their privacy warning flows.

TylerE 7y ago

Mozilla is a for profit entity with some history of selling out their users (Remember Pocket). The Mozilla foundation is a non-profit. The Mozilla Corporation is a for-profit entity with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.

mintplant 7y ago
The Mozilla Corporation is wholly owned by the Mozilla Foundation and bound by its charter. The split structure is an artifact of corpotations being better-understood legal entities than foundations, and thus easier to deal with in various situations (hiring, contracts, etc). See also the Signal Foundation and Signal Messenger, LLC.
101404 7y ago
What happened with Pocket?
- TylerE 7y ago
  It was forced into FF as a non-removable extension.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
    After Mozilla bought Pocket.
    - TylerE 7y ago
      No, two years after. The integration happened in 2015. The acquisition was not until 2017.
jsjddbbwj 7y ago
They have some history of selling out their users... by literally selling their history: 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...

3xblah 7y ago

"Every other browser vendor is a for-profit entity, ..." Not the one that authored the text-only browser I am typing this from. Whether Mozilla turns a profit or not makes little difference in this instance. Mozilla does not survive on donations from users. Its employees are not volunteers working for free to defend user privacy. Its generously compensated executives and staff need money from the online ad business, just like employees from the other browser vendors. If Mozilla stopped taking money from Google or some other online ad business partner, then Mozilla employees would lose their jobs. Maybe of interest: https://dustri.org/b/mozilla-is-still-screwing-around-with-privacy-in-firefox.html https://dustri.org/b/mozilla-is-still-screwing-around-with-p...

Dylan16807 7y ago
I think they're talking about browsers that actually implement most of the spec.
SmartWa 7y ago
Can you recommend one text-only browser?
- freeAgent 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser)
- 3xblah 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_(web_browser) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_(web_browser) Note I do not recommend using a text-only browser interactively for any sort of commercial or important online activity. I use it for recreational activities like reading HN and the websites posted here. I used lynx many years ago in the early 90's. After switching to links, I would never intentionally use lynx again. It amazes me that people still mention lynx when the topic of text-only browsers comes up. I would be shocked if these people who recommend it are using it as their browser on a daily basis for decades.

283627283637 7y ago

Firefox is like that really ugly flower that blooms once every hundred years, they leapfrog the competition briefly and then eventually degrade back to being crap for regular users. I'm aware of the technical politics around what causes this but that only really matters for people who choose browsers based on cyber politics. Quantum was good for six months, now we're back to the same situation where almost everyone outside the tech bubble is using Chrome. You'd think that maybe this would cause them to exercise some strategy, like rushing to conquer mobile since Chrome's mobile ui is trash, but nope. Hell, Brave of all things is doing better at mobile than Firefox.

lonelappde 7y ago
Firefox mobile can't even render pages reliably. That matter more than the UI.
ComodoHacker 7y ago
>Quantum was good for six months, now we're back to the same situation where almost everyone outside the tech bubble is using Chrome. Did Quantum became worse or you're basically saying Mozilla is bad at marketing (and having huge vertically integrated ecosystem)?
- testuser66 7y ago
  It's hard to move browsers permanently if you're not prepared. I moved to FF Quantom for a bit, but had to regularly open Chrome to get passwords etc. And the Chrome assholes removed the password export (or at least I could not for the life of me get it to work at the time) I ended up going back for a bit and added a password manager, and now I can move between browsers easily - but as I said, it's not always straightforward, especially for _most_ non-tech users.
  - ripdog 7y ago
    Firefox has a built in import of browser data from other browsers such as Chrome. Does this no longer work?

Angostura 7y ago

> Every other browser vendor is a for-profit entity, and as such will limit good ad-blocking measures as Safari I thought Safari introduced support for Content Blockers specifically to avoid ad blockers from phoning home and passing potentially sensitive information to the ad blocker's writer. Lots of people then got quite cross that their favourite blocker had been blocked.

tomp 7y ago
No, it was introduced so that Apple could hurt Google on iOS / mobile Safari without opening the can of worms that is browser extensions.
- dannyw 7y ago
  Keep in mind that Apple gets paid a percentage of Google ad revenue made in Safari; just like how Mozila gets paid a percentage of Google ad revenue made in Firefox. Apple is hurting themselves too.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
jackewiehose 7y ago
That is exactly the bullshit they want you to believe. Restricting your ability to install/modify software on your computer because bad software could harm you. You have been bamboozled.
- madeofpalk 7y ago
  I think, especially given events that’ve transpired since, Apple was fairly justified in not giving third party developers unfettered access to web pages and network requests running through the browser. I am very glad that I can install an add blocker on my phone and I don’t have to trust that it’s not going to mine and sell my data. I haven’t been bamboozled, I’ve just made a different decision with a different set of trade offs than you.
- 7y ago

jeltz 7y ago

Being a foundation does not entirely remove the incentives to do shady shit, it just reduces them a bit. Look at ISOC's sale of .org or for Mozilla when they gave Cliqz the browsing histories of a random sample of all German Firefox users.