6 ms·

To be fair, seemed to be by mistake and quickly corrected. They also issued an apoogy. (disclamer: I still use Firefox and recomend you do so as well).

rovr138 4y ago
That's a really intentional mistake to make. Another Firefox user
- colordrops 4y ago
  Firefox does all kinds of shady tracking too unfortunately. Really the best option is to use forks of chrome or Firefox if you are concerned with privacy.
  - harry8 4y ago
    [citation needed]
    - colordrops 4y ago
      Uh, just go into the settings? It's right there.
      - harry8 4y ago
        Uh. Just spell out your concerns and /why/ you need a fork to address them? Or provide a link that does so.
        colordrops 4y ago
        Because I don't want browsing or other behavior data sent to a third party. Does that really need to be explained?
        zamnos 4y ago
        We don't know what you're referring to. What you haven't is explained is what shady tracking you're accusing Firefox of doing, or what to turn off in the settings. Going into about:config and searching for "shady tracking" returns zero results.
        colordrops 4y ago
        * "Allow Firefox to send technical and interaction data to Mozilla" * "Allow Firefox to make personalized extension recommendations" * "Allow Firefox to install and run studies" * "Block dangerous and deceptive content" * "Pocket" add-on installed by default. I don't recall opting in to any of these things when I installed firefox. This isn't some conspiracy or hard to understand concept. They are right there in the settings page, not in the config flags, and I don't understand why it's so difficult to believe this or just look yourself.
        harry8 4y ago
        We were interested in what you were talking about and now we know because you've actually said. That's the way this site is supposed to work. Generally considered a good thing when people are interested in what you have to say, putting barriers in the way seems less than an ideal strategy. So there are five settings that you believe are set to the wrong default. This causes you to mistrust firefox in total and want to use a fork that you deem more trustworthy but haven't mentioned any fork or how you decided that they are more trustworthy. That is all 100% totally and utterly reasonable and we can take it on board and use it to adjust our views or not now that we know what you're talking about. Thanks for posting it clearly that is worth the time it takes. The inital comment is mostly noise and in my view, not worth posting.
        antiframe 4y ago
        I also have a different definition of shady than he's using. A setting clearly and prominently described on the options is not shady in by book, regardless of the default. Would I prefer Firefox had different defaults? Yes. But, I will reserve the word shady for the products actually doing shady things like telemetry in Windows that requires jumping through hoops to turn off.
      - kryptozinc 4y ago
        Source?
        DangitBobby 4y ago
        First party: go to the settings and look.
nicce 4y ago
Sadly, that is a standard procedure for many current businesses. Do things until you get caught, then say it was a mistake and apogolize. Of course there are real mistakes, but this one was quite difficult to make…
dahdum 4y ago
The mistake was getting caught? Eich’s initial response was that was intentional and ethical. Until it went viral and his view evolved. Granted, I’m not too keen to give him or Brave much benefit of doubt. https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1269289242905042944 https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1269289242905042944
- dools 4y ago
  Doesn’t look like it was a privacy problem nor does it look like he claimed it was “by mistake”. Seems perfectly reasonable to me and everyone over reacted so they took it off.
  - chaps 4y ago
    Can you explain how it's not a privacy problem?
    - spoiler 4y ago
      They included Brave's affiliate ID, not the users. I think. So, it didn't reveal anything "new' (for fingerprinting) or anything that can identify the user.
      - hackernewds 4y ago
        Seems like they wanted to hold the data for themselves and backtracked because " Sorry we got caught"
        joshuaissac 4y ago
        > Seems like they wanted to hold the data for themselves Hold what data? The affiliate ID?
        soundnote 4y ago
        Brave could know the user... used Brave?
princevegeta89 4y ago
If we're buying in that "by mistake" nonsense we're being so incredibly naive. How can someone even programatically inject referral links in your page "by mistake"? I've seen too many instances like Google Chrome still tracking you in incognito where companies just come back with they were doing it "by mistake" to believe any of them were really saying the truth.
- Arainach 4y ago
  >Google Chrome still tracking you in incognito When was this?
  - darig 4y ago
    [dead]
  - shakna 4y ago
    The lawsuit [0][1] was filed in 2020. [0] https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2020cv03664/360374 https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2020cv... [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-privacy-lawsuit-idUSKBN23933H https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-privacy-l...
    - Arainach 4y ago
      That's not what the lawsuit says at all. The lawsuit doesn't say Chrome is doing anything. It's claiming that websites, including those owned by Google, are tracking things in incognito sessions. This is because there is no flag that says "this is an incognito session" sent to the site, and the existence of any such flag would be a bug. There's a constant arms race between sites trying to detect incognito and browsers closing the holes.
      - blacksmith_tb 4y ago
        Hmm, not sure it's too likely that sites can differentiate between first time visitors and Incognito / Private browsing, unless they tested for behavior that first time visitors shouldn't be able to do, like signing in (even then that could be a different device, or they might have cleared cookies). In general I would expect most sites to be less interested in identifying Incognito than ad blockers?
unxdfa 4y ago
Eich doesn't seem like the sort of person who makes mistakes, preferring to do a PR backtrack after misjudging his audience after comparing them to his own dubious standards. Never the sort who thinks they did something wrong but likes you to think they did.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tincholio 4y ago
  Well, there's the whole JS thing... :D
  - unxdfa 4y ago
    Don’t depress me further :)
- BrendanEich 4y ago
  I don't make mistakes? News to me. This kind of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose argument is circular at bottom: I'm bad because I don't make mistakes so it was intentional; any attempt to correct a mistake is backtracking. No, it was a mistake. We fixed it. If you expect perfection, stop using Firefox too because Mozilla has made mistakes, including some similar ones. (I don't think they are reasons to stop using Firefox, I'm just applying your fake standard.)
karlzt 4y ago
*apology
kerkeslager 4y ago
In what way did it "seem to be by mistake"? Brendan Eich is literally the guy who normalized letting websites run code on your machine. Even if we generously assume his intentions are good, the kind of thinking that brought us JavaScript is not even capable of grokking what I want from my browser in terms of privacy, security, and respect for my attention. Even if Brave's commitments to these values is genuine and not just marketing, they simply don't know what those values mean. Even if you trust their intentions, you can't trust their execution. They started, right off the bat, by getting in bed with advertisers. That's their revenue stream. That's not how you fund a browser that serves users, that's how you fund a browser that serves advertisers. Even if their intentions are good, they don't know how to execute them. "Mistakes" like injecting redirects into links are exactly what I'd expect Brave to do intentionally, not something I'd assume is a mistake.
- MrOwnPut 4y ago
  All browsers deal in advertising, it's the only way to make money on a free product. And if you don't want the JS that Eich created to run in your browser, you can turn it off... most people like to run sandboxed code instead of installing native programs. Mozilla makes most of their money from Google Search referrals. Chrome was entirely built to put more eyeballs on Google ads and track you. There's a lot more privacy features built into Brave than there are in other browsers. It's user oriented, not adtech oriented. Of Brave, Chrome, and Firefox, who has the built in ad blocker?
  - kerkeslager 4y ago
    > All browsers deal in advertising, it's the only way to make money on a free product. That's a pretty confidently wrong statement. You're aware of Wikipedia, right? More directly relevant: Konqueror? And as is typical of HN, you seem to be unaware that people might be motivated by things other than money. Browsers are a large enough undertaking that you need some money to make one sustainably, but when money isn't your primary motivation it turns out you can do quite a bit with less. > There's a lot more privacy features built into Brave than there are in other browsers. It's user oriented, not adtech oriented. Brave is literally adtech. They sell ads.

rovr138 4y ago

That's a really intentional mistake to make. Another Firefox user

colordrops 4y ago
Firefox does all kinds of shady tracking too unfortunately. Really the best option is to use forks of chrome or Firefox if you are concerned with privacy.
- harry8 4y ago
  [citation needed]
  - colordrops 4y ago
    Uh, just go into the settings? It's right there.
    - harry8 4y ago
      Uh. Just spell out your concerns and /why/ you need a fork to address them? Or provide a link that does so.
      - colordrops 4y ago
        Because I don't want browsing or other behavior data sent to a third party. Does that really need to be explained?
        zamnos 4y ago
        We don't know what you're referring to. What you haven't is explained is what shady tracking you're accusing Firefox of doing, or what to turn off in the settings. Going into about:config and searching for "shady tracking" returns zero results.
        colordrops 4y ago
        * "Allow Firefox to send technical and interaction data to Mozilla" * "Allow Firefox to make personalized extension recommendations" * "Allow Firefox to install and run studies" * "Block dangerous and deceptive content" * "Pocket" add-on installed by default. I don't recall opting in to any of these things when I installed firefox. This isn't some conspiracy or hard to understand concept. They are right there in the settings page, not in the config flags, and I don't understand why it's so difficult to believe this or just look yourself.
        harry8 4y ago
        We were interested in what you were talking about and now we know because you've actually said. That's the way this site is supposed to work. Generally considered a good thing when people are interested in what you have to say, putting barriers in the way seems less than an ideal strategy. So there are five settings that you believe are set to the wrong default. This causes you to mistrust firefox in total and want to use a fork that you deem more trustworthy but haven't mentioned any fork or how you decided that they are more trustworthy. That is all 100% totally and utterly reasonable and we can take it on board and use it to adjust our views or not now that we know what you're talking about. Thanks for posting it clearly that is worth the time it takes. The inital comment is mostly noise and in my view, not worth posting.
        antiframe 4y ago
        I also have a different definition of shady than he's using. A setting clearly and prominently described on the options is not shady in by book, regardless of the default. Would I prefer Firefox had different defaults? Yes. But, I will reserve the word shady for the products actually doing shady things like telemetry in Windows that requires jumping through hoops to turn off.
    - kryptozinc 4y ago
      Source?
      - DangitBobby 4y ago
        First party: go to the settings and look.

nicce 4y ago

Sadly, that is a standard procedure for many current businesses. Do things until you get caught, then say it was a mistake and apogolize. Of course there are real mistakes, but this one was quite difficult to make…

dahdum 4y ago

The mistake was getting caught? Eich’s initial response was that was intentional and ethical. Until it went viral and his view evolved. Granted, I’m not too keen to give him or Brave much benefit of doubt. https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1269289242905042944 https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1269289242905042944

dools 4y ago
Doesn’t look like it was a privacy problem nor does it look like he claimed it was “by mistake”. Seems perfectly reasonable to me and everyone over reacted so they took it off.
- chaps 4y ago
  Can you explain how it's not a privacy problem?
  - spoiler 4y ago
    They included Brave's affiliate ID, not the users. I think. So, it didn't reveal anything "new' (for fingerprinting) or anything that can identify the user.
    - hackernewds 4y ago
      Seems like they wanted to hold the data for themselves and backtracked because " Sorry we got caught"
      - joshuaissac 4y ago
        > Seems like they wanted to hold the data for themselves Hold what data? The affiliate ID?
        soundnote 4y ago
        Brave could know the user... used Brave?

princevegeta89 4y ago

If we're buying in that "by mistake" nonsense we're being so incredibly naive. How can someone even programatically inject referral links in your page "by mistake"? I've seen too many instances like Google Chrome still tracking you in incognito where companies just come back with they were doing it "by mistake" to believe any of them were really saying the truth.

Arainach 4y ago
>Google Chrome still tracking you in incognito When was this?
- darig 4y ago
  [dead]
- shakna 4y ago
  The lawsuit [0][1] was filed in 2020. [0] https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2020cv03664/360374 https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2020cv... [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-privacy-lawsuit-idUSKBN23933H https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-privacy-l...
  - Arainach 4y ago
    That's not what the lawsuit says at all. The lawsuit doesn't say Chrome is doing anything. It's claiming that websites, including those owned by Google, are tracking things in incognito sessions. This is because there is no flag that says "this is an incognito session" sent to the site, and the existence of any such flag would be a bug. There's a constant arms race between sites trying to detect incognito and browsers closing the holes.
    - blacksmith_tb 4y ago
      Hmm, not sure it's too likely that sites can differentiate between first time visitors and Incognito / Private browsing, unless they tested for behavior that first time visitors shouldn't be able to do, like signing in (even then that could be a different device, or they might have cleared cookies). In general I would expect most sites to be less interested in identifying Incognito than ad blockers?

unxdfa 4y ago

Eich doesn't seem like the sort of person who makes mistakes, preferring to do a PR backtrack after misjudging his audience after comparing them to his own dubious standards. Never the sort who thinks they did something wrong but likes you to think they did.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tincholio 4y ago
Well, there's the whole JS thing... :D
- unxdfa 4y ago
  Don’t depress me further :)
BrendanEich 4y ago
I don't make mistakes? News to me. This kind of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose argument is circular at bottom: I'm bad because I don't make mistakes so it was intentional; any attempt to correct a mistake is backtracking. No, it was a mistake. We fixed it. If you expect perfection, stop using Firefox too because Mozilla has made mistakes, including some similar ones. (I don't think they are reasons to stop using Firefox, I'm just applying your fake standard.)

karlzt 4y ago

*apology

kerkeslager 4y ago

In what way did it "seem to be by mistake"? Brendan Eich is literally the guy who normalized letting websites run code on your machine. Even if we generously assume his intentions are good, the kind of thinking that brought us JavaScript is not even capable of grokking what I want from my browser in terms of privacy, security, and respect for my attention. Even if Brave's commitments to these values is genuine and not just marketing, they simply don't know what those values mean. Even if you trust their intentions, you can't trust their execution. They started, right off the bat, by getting in bed with advertisers. That's their revenue stream. That's not how you fund a browser that serves users, that's how you fund a browser that serves advertisers. Even if their intentions are good, they don't know how to execute them. "Mistakes" like injecting redirects into links are exactly what I'd expect Brave to do intentionally, not something I'd assume is a mistake.

MrOwnPut 4y ago
All browsers deal in advertising, it's the only way to make money on a free product. And if you don't want the JS that Eich created to run in your browser, you can turn it off... most people like to run sandboxed code instead of installing native programs. Mozilla makes most of their money from Google Search referrals. Chrome was entirely built to put more eyeballs on Google ads and track you. There's a lot more privacy features built into Brave than there are in other browsers. It's user oriented, not adtech oriented. Of Brave, Chrome, and Firefox, who has the built in ad blocker?
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  > All browsers deal in advertising, it's the only way to make money on a free product. That's a pretty confidently wrong statement. You're aware of Wikipedia, right? More directly relevant: Konqueror? And as is typical of HN, you seem to be unaware that people might be motivated by things other than money. Browsers are a large enough undertaking that you need some money to make one sustainably, but when money isn't your primary motivation it turns out you can do quite a bit with less. > There's a lot more privacy features built into Brave than there are in other browsers. It's user oriented, not adtech oriented. Brave is literally adtech. They sell ads.