7 ms·

Orfox: New Firefox-based Android Private/Secure Browser

48 points by conductor 12y ago

hackuser 12y ago
There is a growing market for privacy (confidentiality), in my amateur opinion; at least it seems that many consumers choose privacy when given the option and they dislike surveillance. Why doesn't Mozilla heavily promote Firefox as the 'private' browser, and why not focus on enhancing those features, instead of leaving it to others to make the 'private' browsers by modifying Firefox? 1) Otherwise browsers are functionally the same for consumers, ignoring trendiness and user familiarity. Some browsers may do certain things milliseconds faster, or more often be perceived to perform faster, but there is little practical difference besides confidentiality. (I realize this may be controversial to some, but I doubt choice of browser impacts most people's productivity beyond confidentiality issues.) 2) Other browser vendors could not easily compete with Mozilla in the area of confidentiality: Their business models often include tracking consumer behavior, and their brands are not as trusted to put users first as a public interest organization is (and it depends on trust; consumers can't verify these things themselves). 3) Other browser vendors would be forced to try to compete regardless and improve confidentiality, and awareness of and demand for confidentiality would be increased, furthering Mozilla's missions. I think demand for confidentiality often is overlooked because consumers rarely have the opportunity to express it -- it's hardly ever an option. Regarding the features: Not all confidentiality features are suited for general use (e.g., NoScript), but many are and some could be options for more advanced users. For example, why isn't there a Tor button or pref in Mozilla's official Firefox releases, which connects to Tor and routes all traffic through it? IME, it works fine, though a little more slowly, for most purposes. EDIT: A few additions and clarifications.
- walterbell 12y ago
  We need a business model for privacy, which means a business model for paid client-side software. Until people are willing to pay for a secure browser, Mozilla will remain dependent on search engine revenue, which in turn derives from advertising/surveillance.
  - hackuser 12y ago
    > We need a business model for privacy, which means a business model for paid client-side software. Until people are willing to pay for a secure browser, Mozilla will remain dependent on search engine revenue, which in turn derives from advertising/surveillance. A very good point. Isn't Mozilla working on that? See today's post on sponsored tiles on new tabs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8237812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8237812 In earlier discussions regarding that feature (I don't know if it subsequently changed), Mozilla said they were developing a way for end-users to control their own tracking data (rather than have it controlled by a commercial vendor) and provide it as desired (and anonymize it?). If that solution could work successfully for Mozilla, it could be a model for one possible solution for everyone, and be proof of concept when legislators and others are looking for options that don't disrupt many large businesses.
    - walterbell 12y ago
      Any revenue diversification is good, so let's hope this works. But this is trying to remove the search engine middleman by working directly with advertisers, i.e. Mozilla would still be in the advertising/surveillance business. Here's a better option: partner with a (micro?)payments company to maintain a secure client-side database with dashboard for donations to open-source software and CC-licensed content. Make Mozilla the best browser for consuming, discovering and funding OSS and CC-licensed content. Instead of showing "sponsored tiles", show project analytics for all the wonderful things that were done today by the projects to which I have donated. Make Mozilla the CRM user interface and payments broker for open content. This would have the side effect of funding new, open content. In this possible future, Mozilla becomes a funnel of money to the commons (including itself), not a shopping cart or magazine. This future would not conflict with sponsored tiles -- let the user choose. Edit: Mozilla could also modify the browser so it can perform "federated search" on the local device, trusted peers (via webrtc) or vertical search (e.g. HackerNews, StackOverflow, Wikipedia) before querying a public search engine. Enable a split-screen mode where private/federated search results are in one half of the screen, and public search results are in the other half of the screen. This will route traffic & revenue to community sites and will promote search privacy, i.e. always hit the local & community cache before querying the broader web.
- asadotzler 12y ago
  "There is a growing market for privacy (confidentiality), in my amateur opinion; at least it seems that many consumers choose privacy when given the option and they dislike surveillance." I think this is mostly a myth when it comes to consumer software. People say they like privacy/confidentiality/security but they are not willing to make any compromises to get it even if those compromises are very small in comparison to the privacy/security wins.
  - hackuser 12y ago
    Asa: Thanks for the input though of course I hope you are wrong. :) Is there research on that? Your experience at Mozilla? I do know a a few data points: (EDIT: walterbell provides a very good data point below, and one that should have been obvious to me!) * Some vendors of confidentiality services report increased demand, especially since the Snowden revelations. (Sorry, I don't remember who reported it.) * Facebook and others now are emphasizing privacy, suggesting that they see demand for it. * A recent consumer survey said confidentiality concerns were impacting purchases on mobile devices. * Also I read in an advertising industry publication that when a retail store chain posted signs saying they were tracking customer activities (via wifi/bluetooth on mobile devices), they got many complaints and saw an impact. * Their solution of course was to take down the signs, which raises another point: If consumers/citizens don't care about surveillance, then why are businesses and government secretive about it?
    - thisisrobv 12y ago
      Privacy is a factor, it's just not the factor that drives most decisions around consumer software (at least mass market adoption). It's true that Facebook and others have emphasized privacy, but they have not compromised the user experience. Projects like this are challenging because you're forcing some behavioral changes for additional security.
  - walterbell 12y ago
    > People say they like privacy/confidentiality/security but they are not willing to make any compromises to get it even if those compromises are very small in comparison to the privacy/security wins. That's a design & engineering problem which can solved for specific use cases. Snapchat's user base & 10 billion dollar valuation is one example.
- andrewfong 12y ago
  Whenever someone asks about the consumer demand for privacy, I have to ask "what kind of privacy?" Almost everyone says they value privacy, but that means different things for different people. Most teenagers don't care at all about government surveillance but care a lot about what their parents see. Spouses may care about the history log in their browsers. Employees care about what their employers see. In addition, our desire for privacy is also contingent upon the effects of losing that privacy, which may vary based on factors that aren't strictly related to privacy. For example, people may regard their e-mail address or phone number as "private", but what those people (or at least some of them) really care about is spam. In the absence of spam (e.g. thanks to really good filtering), certain individuals might not regard an e-mail address as private. If we analogize privacy to security, we might say that different people have different threat models, and that in turn determines how much convenience they're willing to give up for more security and the corresponding "market" for products or services that enhance that type of security.
  - hackuser 12y ago
    Many in our industry believe that consumers don't understand technology or its implications, don't know what they want, and if you base your product design on consumers' stated desires you are substituting the offhand ideas of ignorant amateurs (I don't mean that pejoratively; they have their own jobs to do) for the hard-won, carefully thought-out ideas of expert visionaries. Then why, regarding security issues, do so many in our field say 'consumers don't want that'? Very few consumers understand security technology (try asking one for their password, perhaps the simplest security tech) and even fewer understand the potential implications of threats to their confidentiality (for a simple example, how many think metadata is not a threat -- of the few who know what metadata is). Few people in IT really understand the implications, because it requires understanding political, historical, and social issues. Many in IT know as much about those implications as typical end-users know about metadata, but we are deciding those issues for the world.
    - walterbell 12y ago
      > it requires understanding political, historical, and social issues A good primer on the social context of engineering is L. Sprague de Camp's "The Ancient Engineers", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8158385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8158385 "The first engineers were irrigators, architects, and military engineers. The same man was usually expected to be an expert at all three kinds of work. This was still the case thousands of years later, in the Renaissance, when Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Durer were not only all-round engineers but outstanding artists as well. Specialization within the engineering profession has developed only in the last two or three centuries."

48 points by conductor 12y ago

There is a growing market for privacy (confidentiality), in my amateur opinion; at least it seems that many consumers choose privacy when given the option and they dislike surveillance. Why doesn't Mozilla heavily promote Firefox as the 'private' browser, and why not focus on enhancing those features, instead of leaving it to others to make the 'private' browsers by modifying Firefox? 1) Otherwise browsers are functionally the same for consumers, ignoring trendiness and user familiarity. Some browsers may do certain things milliseconds faster, or more often be perceived to perform faster, but there is little practical difference besides confidentiality. (I realize this may be controversial to some, but I doubt choice of browser impacts most people's productivity beyond confidentiality issues.) 2) Other browser vendors could not easily compete with Mozilla in the area of confidentiality: Their business models often include tracking consumer behavior, and their brands are not as trusted to put users first as a public interest organization is (and it depends on trust; consumers can't verify these things themselves). 3) Other browser vendors would be forced to try to compete regardless and improve confidentiality, and awareness of and demand for confidentiality would be increased, furthering Mozilla's missions. I think demand for confidentiality often is overlooked because consumers rarely have the opportunity to express it -- it's hardly ever an option. Regarding the features: Not all confidentiality features are suited for general use (e.g., NoScript), but many are and some could be options for more advanced users. For example, why isn't there a Tor button or pref in Mozilla's official Firefox releases, which connects to Tor and routes all traffic through it? IME, it works fine, though a little more slowly, for most purposes. EDIT: A few additions and clarifications.

walterbell 12y ago
We need a business model for privacy, which means a business model for paid client-side software. Until people are willing to pay for a secure browser, Mozilla will remain dependent on search engine revenue, which in turn derives from advertising/surveillance.
- hackuser 12y ago
  > We need a business model for privacy, which means a business model for paid client-side software. Until people are willing to pay for a secure browser, Mozilla will remain dependent on search engine revenue, which in turn derives from advertising/surveillance. A very good point. Isn't Mozilla working on that? See today's post on sponsored tiles on new tabs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8237812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8237812 In earlier discussions regarding that feature (I don't know if it subsequently changed), Mozilla said they were developing a way for end-users to control their own tracking data (rather than have it controlled by a commercial vendor) and provide it as desired (and anonymize it?). If that solution could work successfully for Mozilla, it could be a model for one possible solution for everyone, and be proof of concept when legislators and others are looking for options that don't disrupt many large businesses.
  - walterbell 12y ago
    Any revenue diversification is good, so let's hope this works. But this is trying to remove the search engine middleman by working directly with advertisers, i.e. Mozilla would still be in the advertising/surveillance business. Here's a better option: partner with a (micro?)payments company to maintain a secure client-side database with dashboard for donations to open-source software and CC-licensed content. Make Mozilla the best browser for consuming, discovering and funding OSS and CC-licensed content. Instead of showing "sponsored tiles", show project analytics for all the wonderful things that were done today by the projects to which I have donated. Make Mozilla the CRM user interface and payments broker for open content. This would have the side effect of funding new, open content. In this possible future, Mozilla becomes a funnel of money to the commons (including itself), not a shopping cart or magazine. This future would not conflict with sponsored tiles -- let the user choose. Edit: Mozilla could also modify the browser so it can perform "federated search" on the local device, trusted peers (via webrtc) or vertical search (e.g. HackerNews, StackOverflow, Wikipedia) before querying a public search engine. Enable a split-screen mode where private/federated search results are in one half of the screen, and public search results are in the other half of the screen. This will route traffic & revenue to community sites and will promote search privacy, i.e. always hit the local & community cache before querying the broader web.
asadotzler 12y ago
"There is a growing market for privacy (confidentiality), in my amateur opinion; at least it seems that many consumers choose privacy when given the option and they dislike surveillance." I think this is mostly a myth when it comes to consumer software. People say they like privacy/confidentiality/security but they are not willing to make any compromises to get it even if those compromises are very small in comparison to the privacy/security wins.
- hackuser 12y ago
  Asa: Thanks for the input though of course I hope you are wrong. :) Is there research on that? Your experience at Mozilla? I do know a a few data points: (EDIT: walterbell provides a very good data point below, and one that should have been obvious to me!) * Some vendors of confidentiality services report increased demand, especially since the Snowden revelations. (Sorry, I don't remember who reported it.) * Facebook and others now are emphasizing privacy, suggesting that they see demand for it. * A recent consumer survey said confidentiality concerns were impacting purchases on mobile devices. * Also I read in an advertising industry publication that when a retail store chain posted signs saying they were tracking customer activities (via wifi/bluetooth on mobile devices), they got many complaints and saw an impact. * Their solution of course was to take down the signs, which raises another point: If consumers/citizens don't care about surveillance, then why are businesses and government secretive about it?
  - thisisrobv 12y ago
    Privacy is a factor, it's just not the factor that drives most decisions around consumer software (at least mass market adoption). It's true that Facebook and others have emphasized privacy, but they have not compromised the user experience. Projects like this are challenging because you're forcing some behavioral changes for additional security.
- walterbell 12y ago
  > People say they like privacy/confidentiality/security but they are not willing to make any compromises to get it even if those compromises are very small in comparison to the privacy/security wins. That's a design & engineering problem which can solved for specific use cases. Snapchat's user base & 10 billion dollar valuation is one example.
andrewfong 12y ago
Whenever someone asks about the consumer demand for privacy, I have to ask "what kind of privacy?" Almost everyone says they value privacy, but that means different things for different people. Most teenagers don't care at all about government surveillance but care a lot about what their parents see. Spouses may care about the history log in their browsers. Employees care about what their employers see. In addition, our desire for privacy is also contingent upon the effects of losing that privacy, which may vary based on factors that aren't strictly related to privacy. For example, people may regard their e-mail address or phone number as "private", but what those people (or at least some of them) really care about is spam. In the absence of spam (e.g. thanks to really good filtering), certain individuals might not regard an e-mail address as private. If we analogize privacy to security, we might say that different people have different threat models, and that in turn determines how much convenience they're willing to give up for more security and the corresponding "market" for products or services that enhance that type of security.
- hackuser 12y ago
  Many in our industry believe that consumers don't understand technology or its implications, don't know what they want, and if you base your product design on consumers' stated desires you are substituting the offhand ideas of ignorant amateurs (I don't mean that pejoratively; they have their own jobs to do) for the hard-won, carefully thought-out ideas of expert visionaries. Then why, regarding security issues, do so many in our field say 'consumers don't want that'? Very few consumers understand security technology (try asking one for their password, perhaps the simplest security tech) and even fewer understand the potential implications of threats to their confidentiality (for a simple example, how many think metadata is not a threat -- of the few who know what metadata is). Few people in IT really understand the implications, because it requires understanding political, historical, and social issues. Many in IT know as much about those implications as typical end-users know about metadata, but we are deciding those issues for the world.
  - walterbell 12y ago
    > it requires understanding political, historical, and social issues A good primer on the social context of engineering is L. Sprague de Camp's "The Ancient Engineers", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8158385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8158385 "The first engineers were irrigators, architects, and military engineers. The same man was usually expected to be an expert at all three kinds of work. This was still the case thousands of years later, in the Renaissance, when Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Durer were not only all-round engineers but outstanding artists as well. Specialization within the engineering profession has developed only in the last two or three centuries."