7 ms·

How else is one supposed to react to this other than with cynicism? This is the nature of going on the Internet, you will be tracked whether you like it or not.

How else is one supposed to react to this other than with cynicism? This is the nature of going on the Internet, you will be tracked whether you like it or not. No one is anonymous. The Internet, while being one of the greatest inventions by mankind, has succumbed like all the others to the maladies of greed. Unless some billionaire Elon Musk-esque figure funds a private service to actually not, really, no-for-real track you, it won't happen. Personal incentives motivate people, and until this hypothetical billionaire sees an incentive other than profit, it's not happening.

6a68 12y ago
> How else is one supposed to react to this other than with cynicism? How about empowerment instead of cynicism? Maybe it's possible to build browsers and advertising and mobile devices that don't relentlessly erode privacy. I work at Mozilla to help build that tech. I firmly believe the dystopian corporate future isn't the only option. You should check us out: https://www.mozilla.org/mission https://www.mozilla.org/mission
- whoopdedo 12y ago
  > Maybe it's possible to build browsers and advertising and mobile devices that don't relentlessly erode privacy. That's nice a nice sentiment. I'd be less skeptical if Firefox didn't change my default search engine behind my back. (After updating Android from 31 to 36.)
  - rockdoe 12y ago
    If you changed the defaults, it was kept. If you never set a search engine, the shipped default was changed (and clearly mentioned as such in the release notes not to mention all over the press, so saying "behind my back" is quite funny).
    - talmand 12y ago
      Just to play devil's advocate, what if the default was the choice the user wanted?
      - rockdoe 12y ago
        Then he can switch it after having read the release notes pointing it out? The behind the back part was unwarranted, so the only thing that's remaining really is "I preferred the previous default" which doesn't quite jive with the "I'm skeptical regarding privacy" complaint that was made.
        talmand 12y ago
        Then that's just bad design. If there was a possibility of them switching out the pre-determined defaults then the default choices should have been asked of the user from the beginning. But then, it's hard to make money that way so I can understand why they wouldn't do that. EDIT: you edited, but I agree the "behind the back" isn't quite right.
        rockdoe 12y ago
        Presenting modal dialogs to the users on first run is considered terrible UX design with a high bounce rate. The way you state it, you'd have to ask the user to verify every single setting in your app. That is problematic. Making money doesn't even have to factor in. (Ok, if nobody uses the apps, you're not making money either, but you get what I mean)
        talmand 12y ago
        I don't think I stated they should ask for every single setting in the app. Exaggerating to support your claim is not the way to go. But, considering we're discussing a rather popular and commonly used feature that is front-facing in the browser; yes, they should ask up front which search engine provider you would prefer to use. Especially if they plan for the likelihood to change the default, which may be a user's preferred choice. Also, since they were receiving money from Google to have it be the default search engine and they switched to Yahoo because they got another/better deal; it is about the money. EDIT: another thought, if the choice provided has a high bounce rate then obviously it would just go with a determined default in that case. Hopefully it wouldn't prevent them from using the app because they declined to set preferences on first run. If they chose not to set the preference and the default later changes, then it's on them.
    - tomc1985 12y ago
      I woke up one day (after clicking update) to find my default search engine set to Yahoo and ads in my new tab page. You can mention it all you want in the release notes, but users don't expect nor want those kinds of things to change. The only thing more behind-the-back than that is Chrome yanking Java (well, NPAPI) with no warning in Update 42
    - whoopdedo 12y ago
      I had it set to DDG prior. After upgrade it was Yahoo. I know that Hanlon's Razor tells me to suspect it was just a bug. But the current environment of money and politics makes it hard to ignore the alternative.
  - nosuchthing 12y ago
    Feel free to revert back to 31 and write your own updates & bug fixes.
    - whoopdedo 12y ago
      I actually did revert to 31 but only because 36 was unusably slow.
  - UweSchmidt 12y ago
    Come on, it's not really "behind your back" if it's something you can immediately see on the page. The search engine thing is the one thing you'd have to deal with as it just about pays for all of Mozilla.
- UserRights 12y ago
  I respect the work you do and mozilla does many great things - however, when I start freshly installed firefox (on ubuntu), I have already a google cookie set. Why?
  - alexbel 12y ago
    Because google gives money to mozilla?
SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
Cynicism? I react with annoyance to people who think that: * Auto-updates to software with a high need for security patches are not important enough to ping a server, which (of course!) exposes your IP. * Businesses aren't interested in collecting usage metrics for their software for non-nefarious reasons. Collection of metrics is one of the most amazing advances in software design in the last 20 years, after all. * Businesses shouldn't have a profit motive: Ghostery found a way to both provide a service and make money off of the people who track others. Seems reasonable to me. Cynicism is misplaced, here. Annoyance at blowing up a non-issue to the front page of HN is appropriate, though.
- hackuser 12y ago
  > important enough to ping a server, which (of course!) exposes your IP. It's "of course" for you and me, but not for the vast majority if end users. Also, there's no reason this can't be done anonymously, even as a policy from the vendor that IPs are not logged. > Businesses aren't interested in collecting usage metrics for their software for non-nefarious reasons Absolutely some businesses have good intentions; also some have bad intentions and some have intentions that they think are non-nefarious but about which their customers disagree. A few thoughts: * Many of these businesses are secretive about this behavior; if it's all ok and for the good, what are they hiding? Why don't they announce it to every customer when they start using the product? * The collection of usage metrics goes way beyond what is needed, with many vendors collecting everything they can get their hands on. * The bad actors damage everyone's reputations; consumers have no way to distinguish good guys from bad. If this was properly regulated, consumers might trust everyone more. The good guys should be pushing for regulation. > Businesses shouldn't have a profit motive I don't recall a criticism of profit, but maybe I overlooked it.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    It's pointless to talk about what 'many businesses' do; we're having a discussion about some specific businesses. I also fail to see what the kerfuffle is because when I installed these anti-tracking plugins it was made quite clear to me, in plain English, that they would download updates from time to time. The whole thing has an air of 'locksmiths - do they know too much about how we keep our doors closed?!'

6a68 12y ago

> How else is one supposed to react to this other than with cynicism? How about empowerment instead of cynicism? Maybe it's possible to build browsers and advertising and mobile devices that don't relentlessly erode privacy. I work at Mozilla to help build that tech. I firmly believe the dystopian corporate future isn't the only option. You should check us out: https://www.mozilla.org/mission https://www.mozilla.org/mission

whoopdedo 12y ago
> Maybe it's possible to build browsers and advertising and mobile devices that don't relentlessly erode privacy. That's nice a nice sentiment. I'd be less skeptical if Firefox didn't change my default search engine behind my back. (After updating Android from 31 to 36.)
- rockdoe 12y ago
  If you changed the defaults, it was kept. If you never set a search engine, the shipped default was changed (and clearly mentioned as such in the release notes not to mention all over the press, so saying "behind my back" is quite funny).
  - talmand 12y ago
    Just to play devil's advocate, what if the default was the choice the user wanted?
    - rockdoe 12y ago
      Then he can switch it after having read the release notes pointing it out? The behind the back part was unwarranted, so the only thing that's remaining really is "I preferred the previous default" which doesn't quite jive with the "I'm skeptical regarding privacy" complaint that was made.
      - talmand 12y ago
        Then that's just bad design. If there was a possibility of them switching out the pre-determined defaults then the default choices should have been asked of the user from the beginning. But then, it's hard to make money that way so I can understand why they wouldn't do that. EDIT: you edited, but I agree the "behind the back" isn't quite right.
        rockdoe 12y ago
        Presenting modal dialogs to the users on first run is considered terrible UX design with a high bounce rate. The way you state it, you'd have to ask the user to verify every single setting in your app. That is problematic. Making money doesn't even have to factor in. (Ok, if nobody uses the apps, you're not making money either, but you get what I mean)
        talmand 12y ago
        I don't think I stated they should ask for every single setting in the app. Exaggerating to support your claim is not the way to go. But, considering we're discussing a rather popular and commonly used feature that is front-facing in the browser; yes, they should ask up front which search engine provider you would prefer to use. Especially if they plan for the likelihood to change the default, which may be a user's preferred choice. Also, since they were receiving money from Google to have it be the default search engine and they switched to Yahoo because they got another/better deal; it is about the money. EDIT: another thought, if the choice provided has a high bounce rate then obviously it would just go with a determined default in that case. Hopefully it wouldn't prevent them from using the app because they declined to set preferences on first run. If they chose not to set the preference and the default later changes, then it's on them.
  - tomc1985 12y ago
    I woke up one day (after clicking update) to find my default search engine set to Yahoo and ads in my new tab page. You can mention it all you want in the release notes, but users don't expect nor want those kinds of things to change. The only thing more behind-the-back than that is Chrome yanking Java (well, NPAPI) with no warning in Update 42
  - whoopdedo 12y ago
    I had it set to DDG prior. After upgrade it was Yahoo. I know that Hanlon's Razor tells me to suspect it was just a bug. But the current environment of money and politics makes it hard to ignore the alternative.
- nosuchthing 12y ago
  Feel free to revert back to 31 and write your own updates & bug fixes.
  - whoopdedo 12y ago
    I actually did revert to 31 but only because 36 was unusably slow.
- UweSchmidt 12y ago
  Come on, it's not really "behind your back" if it's something you can immediately see on the page. The search engine thing is the one thing you'd have to deal with as it just about pays for all of Mozilla.
UserRights 12y ago
I respect the work you do and mozilla does many great things - however, when I start freshly installed firefox (on ubuntu), I have already a google cookie set. Why?
- alexbel 12y ago
  Because google gives money to mozilla?

SomeCallMeTim 12y ago

Cynicism? I react with annoyance to people who think that: * Auto-updates to software with a high need for security patches are not important enough to ping a server, which (of course!) exposes your IP. * Businesses aren't interested in collecting usage metrics for their software for non-nefarious reasons. Collection of metrics is one of the most amazing advances in software design in the last 20 years, after all. * Businesses shouldn't have a profit motive: Ghostery found a way to both provide a service and make money off of the people who track others. Seems reasonable to me. Cynicism is misplaced, here. Annoyance at blowing up a non-issue to the front page of HN is appropriate, though.

hackuser 12y ago
> important enough to ping a server, which (of course!) exposes your IP. It's "of course" for you and me, but not for the vast majority if end users. Also, there's no reason this can't be done anonymously, even as a policy from the vendor that IPs are not logged. > Businesses aren't interested in collecting usage metrics for their software for non-nefarious reasons Absolutely some businesses have good intentions; also some have bad intentions and some have intentions that they think are non-nefarious but about which their customers disagree. A few thoughts: * Many of these businesses are secretive about this behavior; if it's all ok and for the good, what are they hiding? Why don't they announce it to every customer when they start using the product? * The collection of usage metrics goes way beyond what is needed, with many vendors collecting everything they can get their hands on. * The bad actors damage everyone's reputations; consumers have no way to distinguish good guys from bad. If this was properly regulated, consumers might trust everyone more. The good guys should be pushing for regulation. > Businesses shouldn't have a profit motive I don't recall a criticism of profit, but maybe I overlooked it.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  It's pointless to talk about what 'many businesses' do; we're having a discussion about some specific businesses. I also fail to see what the kerfuffle is because when I installed these anti-tracking plugins it was made quite clear to me, in plain English, that they would download updates from time to time. The whole thing has an air of 'locksmiths - do they know too much about how we keep our doors closed?!'