3 ms·

> What about that data is harmful to you? Arguments like these always reminds me of the story where some town had a population register that included religion,

> What about that data is harmful to you? Arguments like these always reminds me of the story where some town had a population register that included religion, and then the Nazis invaded. You don't know how or when the collected data will be misused, whether by the original owner, a malicious third-party breaching their systems, or the government (and even somewhat-stable governments can quickly turn sour, see Russia or the US's recent issues on abortion for an example). Furthermore, at least in Europe, the GDPR mandates that all non-essential data collection must be strictly opt-in, so regardless of opinions, it's a law with which you have to technically comply (even though lacklustre enforcement allows offenders to get away), but doubly so if your entire selling pitch is based on privacy.

coldpie 4y ago
I agree, which is why I asked what data is being collected. If it's like, "a user launched Firefox version 105.0.1 and has Pocket disabled," I've got a tough time caring. Telemetry is genuinely useful information. But if it's like, "a user with IP 123.45 opened MyFavoriteReligion.com and spent 20 minutes at that domain" then it's bad news. So, I'd like to know what's actually being transmitted.
- EE84M3i 4y ago
  I'm not sure I follow your example, because any telemetry event will always include the IP as it's required to establish a connection.
- sfink 4y ago
  https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ answers that question, though admittedly it's not a quick answer that can be easily summarized. It's basically "a user at IP x.y.z.w launched Firefox version 105.0.1 and has Pocket disabled" where the IP is not collected other than in the server logs: "When Firefox sends data to us, your IP address is temporarily collected as part of our server logs." Actual URLs are treated very carefully. The only ways I know that they could be leaked: (1) there is limited exposure via the SafeBrowsing stuff, and (2) if you crash then URLs could be swept up in the crash report and visible to privileged people at Mozilla. Or if you manually submit a profile and don't anonymize it (there's a checkbox to submit URLs that is checked by default), but you have to go out of your way to do that. There very well could be other ways, but browsing history is treated as very sensitive data for both legal and moral reasons. Personally, I would not trust Mozilla to be unable to answer the question "has this IP address ever used Firefox?", especially if under subpoena. The IP is temporarily in the server logs, it's used for coarse location information, etc. I doubt anyone is all that interested in asking that question, though.
zuhsetaqi 4y ago
Do you have any source for that story? I also heard of it but don’t know if it’s made up or not and couldn’t find a source
- jjulius 4y ago
  I was as curious as you, and found this: >While the fact that the census 1939 inquired Jewish ancestry is a well known fact in historiography its significance for the identification of individual Jews in the context of the Shoah has been disputed. The thesis argues that a population register introduced in 1939 - the People's Card Index (Volkskartei) - was essential in the identification of German Jews. Consulting new sources it shows that the collation of the census data on ancestry with the Volkskartei was ordered in March 1941 to facilitate the identification and localisation of German Jews in the context of the deportations. https://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/95623/ https://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/95623/
  - b112 4y ago
    My understanding, is it wasn't a census, but just info at local town halls. The purpose was only so you could be buried where you wanted, in a preferred cemetery, Catholics in a Catholic cemetery for example, people wanted, and cared about that, back then. But if you died without relatives... the town had to know.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    So, the information that killed people was actually one that people overlook even in hindsight? That puts the comments around here saying "what use can they make of X and Y?" on a new light.
godelski 4y ago
> Arguments like these always reminds me of the story where some town had a population register that included religion, and then the Nazis invaded. I agree that these questions often are asked by those being deceitful, but the reason that works is because it is a dog whistle. Something that hides in normal speech. But we can't presume that someone asking a question like this is in fact dog whistling. If we do, we only enable to whistlers because honest askers will be put off by pretentious and arrogant responses. It is better to answer in good faith until they show their true colors. Even if it is a dog whistle, others will read this public forum and go "why are they attacking someone who is just asking a question?" That gives them power. So let's be honest here.

coldpie 4y ago

I agree, which is why I asked what data is being collected. If it's like, "a user launched Firefox version 105.0.1 and has Pocket disabled," I've got a tough time caring. Telemetry is genuinely useful information. But if it's like, "a user with IP 123.45 opened MyFavoriteReligion.com and spent 20 minutes at that domain" then it's bad news. So, I'd like to know what's actually being transmitted.

EE84M3i 4y ago
I'm not sure I follow your example, because any telemetry event will always include the IP as it's required to establish a connection.
sfink 4y ago
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ answers that question, though admittedly it's not a quick answer that can be easily summarized. It's basically "a user at IP x.y.z.w launched Firefox version 105.0.1 and has Pocket disabled" where the IP is not collected other than in the server logs: "When Firefox sends data to us, your IP address is temporarily collected as part of our server logs." Actual URLs are treated very carefully. The only ways I know that they could be leaked: (1) there is limited exposure via the SafeBrowsing stuff, and (2) if you crash then URLs could be swept up in the crash report and visible to privileged people at Mozilla. Or if you manually submit a profile and don't anonymize it (there's a checkbox to submit URLs that is checked by default), but you have to go out of your way to do that. There very well could be other ways, but browsing history is treated as very sensitive data for both legal and moral reasons. Personally, I would not trust Mozilla to be unable to answer the question "has this IP address ever used Firefox?", especially if under subpoena. The IP is temporarily in the server logs, it's used for coarse location information, etc. I doubt anyone is all that interested in asking that question, though.

zuhsetaqi 4y ago

Do you have any source for that story? I also heard of it but don’t know if it’s made up or not and couldn’t find a source

jjulius 4y ago
I was as curious as you, and found this: >While the fact that the census 1939 inquired Jewish ancestry is a well known fact in historiography its significance for the identification of individual Jews in the context of the Shoah has been disputed. The thesis argues that a population register introduced in 1939 - the People's Card Index (Volkskartei) - was essential in the identification of German Jews. Consulting new sources it shows that the collation of the census data on ancestry with the Volkskartei was ordered in March 1941 to facilitate the identification and localisation of German Jews in the context of the deportations. https://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/95623/ https://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/95623/
- b112 4y ago
  My understanding, is it wasn't a census, but just info at local town halls. The purpose was only so you could be buried where you wanted, in a preferred cemetery, Catholics in a Catholic cemetery for example, people wanted, and cared about that, back then. But if you died without relatives... the town had to know.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  So, the information that killed people was actually one that people overlook even in hindsight? That puts the comments around here saying "what use can they make of X and Y?" on a new light.

godelski 4y ago

> Arguments like these always reminds me of the story where some town had a population register that included religion, and then the Nazis invaded. I agree that these questions often are asked by those being deceitful, but the reason that works is because it is a dog whistle. Something that hides in normal speech. But we can't presume that someone asking a question like this is in fact dog whistling. If we do, we only enable to whistlers because honest askers will be put off by pretentious and arrogant responses. It is better to answer in good faith until they show their true colors. Even if it is a dog whistle, others will read this public forum and go "why are they attacking someone who is just asking a question?" That gives them power. So let's be honest here.