7 ms·

Whatever Mozilla's focus is when you load Firefox you experience the following: 1. On ESR first time it loads two pages load including https://www.mozilla.org

Whatever Mozilla's focus is when you load Firefox you experience the following: 1. On ESR first time it loads two pages load including https://www.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/60.8.0/firstrun/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/60.8.0/firstrun/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ You then find first party cookies are set by Google Analytics _ga GA1.2.1671101194.1567114471 _gat_UA-36116321-1 1 _gid GA1.2.377831647.1567114471 In the EU this would breach the ePrivacy Directive - as there is neither consent or information supplied in advance. Privacy is not just about information captured about you, but about privacy of what you have stored on your electronic devices. Note: https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2019/07/blog-cookies-what-does-good-look-like/ https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-bl... Myth 2: Analytics cookies are strictly necessary so we do not need consent 2. If you then type "privacy" into the address bar, it loads https://www.google.com/search?q=privacy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-e https://www.google.com/search?q=privacy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&cl... directing users into the most privacy invasive service on the internet with no advance warning. I now have a wealth of Google cookies from their search domain, but there are also cookies set for DoubleClick and Adservices. I'm now enrolled into surveillance capitalism and all I did was open Firefox for the first time, type "privacy" and press enter. Mozilla talk a lot about privacy, but their products and websites don't live up to the privacy standards we need and if anything they're on the wrong side of the fence when it comes to acting on privacy - they still make things worse and not better; although it has to be acknowledged that they have improved a lot with the tracking protection features that have slowly been making their way into Firefox. You might find this interesting to read https://twitter.com/jonathansampson/status/1165858896176660480 https://twitter.com/jonathansampson/status/11658588961766604...

kerkeslager 7y ago
You're right. Do you have a better solution? I'm not asking to be glib, I actually want a browser that does a better job of protecting my privacy.
- pastastickers 7y ago
  They might need an Apple-like "courage" moment, and replace Google with DuckDuckGo or Startpage as their default search service. Come to think of it, I would expect the same move from Apple as well, on Safari.
  - snazz 7y ago
    That would kill their primary revenue source. I agree, it needs to be done. Hopefully the new Mozilla CEO will figure out a way to do it.
  - doctor_eval 7y ago
    Safari/DDG user here. Presumably Firefox could load the search results into a container that throws away all the cookies after the search is done. Doesn’t it work like that for FB? Presumably, the real problem is that this would be against Google’s terms of the agreement between google and. moz, but - at least technically - there is no reason to throw away access to google if that’s seen to be a desirable default. Of course - I’m guessing that google is gonna add its own tracking variables to URLs, so any search result returned by google really is going to be suspect regardless of what we do.
- marichards 7y ago
  No solution, but I think we'll never find one if debate, about problems with web privacy, suggests Mozilla is the answer - until they put into actions their words, they shouldn't be seen as the way to go. Whilst I have reservations about Brave, from a privacy standpoint they appear to be more trustworthy and some of the actions they are involved with, like complaints to regulators are far beyond anything we've seen of Mozilla - sure they may have corporate motives, but right now they appear to align far better with consumer privacy. There are forks of Firefox that are trying to improve on delivery of privacy https://tracker.pureos.net/w/pureos/policy/purebrowser/ https://tracker.pureos.net/w/pureos/policy/purebrowser/ https://github.com/intika/Librefox https://github.com/intika/Librefox I am not wholly comfortable using Brave because of its dependency on Chromium, too much of a dependency on a single web rendering engine reminds me of IE days. I would suggest to anyone, install them both and more, you might love browsing the web in emacs (someone must) - if you find a website that doesn't work on Firefox and you need Chrome, then why not use Brave instead? Personally I'm trying both, I also bought a Librem Laptop so I have PureBrowser too and I'm not afraid to throw some of my money and inconvenience at products that are better at protecting my privacy: for techies we can all do this with relative ease. For non-techies, which is where we really need the sea of change (and who are unlikely to read this), then we can advise them towards Apple's products and make them aware of products like Brave so it can be their "backup" browser if not their first choice - not perfect, but I'd prefer my family to browse using Safari, Firefox (with privacy settings I have to sit down and sort out for them) or Brave; than Chrome.
codehalo 7y ago
The downvotes you are receiving for pointing out facts illustrates the cesspool of Firefox hypocrisy that hacker news has become.
- nothrabannosir 7y ago
  Honestly typing "privacy" into a UI that is designed to act as a search field for Google, and blaming that on Mozilla somehow, that's a stretch. What's next? Typing "which company faked the moon landing" and WOW you're redirect to Google! It must have been them. It's nothing but opinionated. You can't honestly call this a "fact" and go on to claim that HN is hypocritical. That's... is there a word for hypocrisy about hypocrisy? (The first point made is not even that bad, it's just that quagmire following it which dilutes the whole thing)
  - marichards 7y ago
    If Mozilla wanted to respect privacy the "UI that is designed to act as a search field for Google" could be a "UI that is designed to act as a search field for DuckDuckGo", it wasn't that long ago it was a search field for Yahoo. What's notable here is that Google is the default and in doing so is endorsed and recommended by Mozilla for its users. So the fact here is that Mozilla made that choice to be in bed with Google. The sad irony is Chrome on Android will insist on asking users for the default search engine choice (in the EU at least https://www.techspot.com/news/81273-google-android-users-europe-choose-their-default-search.html https://www.techspot.com/news/81273-google-android-users-eur... ). Maybe think about it another way. Imagine Greenpeace defaulted to offering to book supporters private planes to get to every protest. It is this nature of extreme distance from organisational values that Mozilla is expressing when it defaults to Google search.
    - riquito 7y ago
      Let's completely neglect in those "facts" that Google offers the best search engine and that people want to use it
onyva 7y ago
Talking about the cesspool of Brave employee lurking here, this discussion might be interesting when you guys start identifying as such. It didn’t go unnoticed that you guys are all over the place attacking Firefox and Mozilla !!! on privacy. Really? Clearly you think this is your entry point for some reason. Brave is a corporation. For profit. It can’t and shouldn’t be trusted. Especially not a company run by a disgraced ex Mozilla employee accused of homophobia and racism. No thanks. Lesson was learned with like trillion other for profit corporations offering to save the world and then using the first opportunity to betray their customers (customers, not users) when investors or stock holders demand that. You’re not fooling anyone. Just to make a point Mozilla’s data collection for its own operations is understood. If it’s unwanted Mozilla can be pressured to change the defaults. This is because it’s a non for profit working for users, not for share holders.
- BrendanEich 7y ago
  You've been downvoted, but your words deserve a reply. Profit motive does not go away in a "non-profit" (Mozilla Corp is the for-profit subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation; top salary last seen [2017] was $2.3M+). It takes innumeracy or worse to miss that Mozilla depends for its profits (to pay such salaries and bonuses) mainly on the Google search deal. In my opinion, this conflict of interest between users and Mozilla's search revenue share held back tracking protection in Firefox over the years. Meanwhile Brave has a transparent rate card, where we pay the user 70% of the gross revenue for user-private ads, and 15% for publisher ads (not yet deployed; the publisher makes 70% and we take same as the user). So we get <= what users get, and will fail if our users don't like the private/anonymous ad model enough to opt in at sufficient scale that we can cover our costs. Good luck pressuring Mozilla to cut its top exec's pay from seven figures. Your words are empty.
  - onyva 7y ago
    And you, sir, you were fired from Mozilla because of community pressure. I appreciate Mozilla even though I didn’t always use Firefox because of what it represents, and rejecting a CEO who’s homophobic and racist is showing the power of that community.
Vinnl 7y ago
Relevant context: 1. Mozilla only enabled Google Analytics after signing a contract with Google that that data would not be fed into Google's models. There's no reason to believe Google would violate that legal agreement. 2. The Twitter thread you linked is by a Brave employee. It should be judged by the facts it shows, but is good context to keep in mind w.r.t. their presentation.
- BrendanEich 7y ago
  Are you at Mozilla? That contract was referenced in a bug long ago. I'm not sure it can be enforced, given how Google's revamped Analytics 360 works.
  - Vinnl 7y ago
    No I'm not. I'd imagine that a contract would be enforced by both parties respecting it, especially given that there's not that much to win for Google, and much to lose if, say, an employee would leak that it was being violated.
    - BrendanEich 7y ago
      Let's see the contract and its term, if not hear from Google that it is in effect. Sorry, but reputable blockers block GA because it is now tied into Google's overall ads/data business and they say as much in touting it, in their privacy policy even with its carve-outs, and in others' experience with it. For Mozilla to use GA instead of self-hosted Matomo is odd to me as a founder of mozilla.org (none are left at Mozilla now, FYI). We do the latter at Brave. Is it just for convenience?
reportgunner 7y ago
What happens when you turn on chrome or brave ?

kerkeslager 7y ago

You're right. Do you have a better solution? I'm not asking to be glib, I actually want a browser that does a better job of protecting my privacy.

pastastickers 7y ago
They might need an Apple-like "courage" moment, and replace Google with DuckDuckGo or Startpage as their default search service. Come to think of it, I would expect the same move from Apple as well, on Safari.
- snazz 7y ago
  That would kill their primary revenue source. I agree, it needs to be done. Hopefully the new Mozilla CEO will figure out a way to do it.
- doctor_eval 7y ago
  Safari/DDG user here. Presumably Firefox could load the search results into a container that throws away all the cookies after the search is done. Doesn’t it work like that for FB? Presumably, the real problem is that this would be against Google’s terms of the agreement between google and. moz, but - at least technically - there is no reason to throw away access to google if that’s seen to be a desirable default. Of course - I’m guessing that google is gonna add its own tracking variables to URLs, so any search result returned by google really is going to be suspect regardless of what we do.
marichards 7y ago
No solution, but I think we'll never find one if debate, about problems with web privacy, suggests Mozilla is the answer - until they put into actions their words, they shouldn't be seen as the way to go. Whilst I have reservations about Brave, from a privacy standpoint they appear to be more trustworthy and some of the actions they are involved with, like complaints to regulators are far beyond anything we've seen of Mozilla - sure they may have corporate motives, but right now they appear to align far better with consumer privacy. There are forks of Firefox that are trying to improve on delivery of privacy https://tracker.pureos.net/w/pureos/policy/purebrowser/ https://tracker.pureos.net/w/pureos/policy/purebrowser/ https://github.com/intika/Librefox https://github.com/intika/Librefox I am not wholly comfortable using Brave because of its dependency on Chromium, too much of a dependency on a single web rendering engine reminds me of IE days. I would suggest to anyone, install them both and more, you might love browsing the web in emacs (someone must) - if you find a website that doesn't work on Firefox and you need Chrome, then why not use Brave instead? Personally I'm trying both, I also bought a Librem Laptop so I have PureBrowser too and I'm not afraid to throw some of my money and inconvenience at products that are better at protecting my privacy: for techies we can all do this with relative ease. For non-techies, which is where we really need the sea of change (and who are unlikely to read this), then we can advise them towards Apple's products and make them aware of products like Brave so it can be their "backup" browser if not their first choice - not perfect, but I'd prefer my family to browse using Safari, Firefox (with privacy settings I have to sit down and sort out for them) or Brave; than Chrome.

codehalo 7y ago

The downvotes you are receiving for pointing out facts illustrates the cesspool of Firefox hypocrisy that hacker news has become.

nothrabannosir 7y ago
Honestly typing "privacy" into a UI that is designed to act as a search field for Google, and blaming that on Mozilla somehow, that's a stretch. What's next? Typing "which company faked the moon landing" and WOW you're redirect to Google! It must have been them. It's nothing but opinionated. You can't honestly call this a "fact" and go on to claim that HN is hypocritical. That's... is there a word for hypocrisy about hypocrisy? (The first point made is not even that bad, it's just that quagmire following it which dilutes the whole thing)
- marichards 7y ago
  If Mozilla wanted to respect privacy the "UI that is designed to act as a search field for Google" could be a "UI that is designed to act as a search field for DuckDuckGo", it wasn't that long ago it was a search field for Yahoo. What's notable here is that Google is the default and in doing so is endorsed and recommended by Mozilla for its users. So the fact here is that Mozilla made that choice to be in bed with Google. The sad irony is Chrome on Android will insist on asking users for the default search engine choice (in the EU at least https://www.techspot.com/news/81273-google-android-users-europe-choose-their-default-search.html https://www.techspot.com/news/81273-google-android-users-eur... ). Maybe think about it another way. Imagine Greenpeace defaulted to offering to book supporters private planes to get to every protest. It is this nature of extreme distance from organisational values that Mozilla is expressing when it defaults to Google search.
  - riquito 7y ago
    Let's completely neglect in those "facts" that Google offers the best search engine and that people want to use it

onyva 7y ago

Talking about the cesspool of Brave employee lurking here, this discussion might be interesting when you guys start identifying as such. It didn’t go unnoticed that you guys are all over the place attacking Firefox and Mozilla !!! on privacy. Really? Clearly you think this is your entry point for some reason. Brave is a corporation. For profit. It can’t and shouldn’t be trusted. Especially not a company run by a disgraced ex Mozilla employee accused of homophobia and racism. No thanks. Lesson was learned with like trillion other for profit corporations offering to save the world and then using the first opportunity to betray their customers (customers, not users) when investors or stock holders demand that. You’re not fooling anyone. Just to make a point Mozilla’s data collection for its own operations is understood. If it’s unwanted Mozilla can be pressured to change the defaults. This is because it’s a non for profit working for users, not for share holders.

BrendanEich 7y ago
You've been downvoted, but your words deserve a reply. Profit motive does not go away in a "non-profit" (Mozilla Corp is the for-profit subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation; top salary last seen [2017] was $2.3M+). It takes innumeracy or worse to miss that Mozilla depends for its profits (to pay such salaries and bonuses) mainly on the Google search deal. In my opinion, this conflict of interest between users and Mozilla's search revenue share held back tracking protection in Firefox over the years. Meanwhile Brave has a transparent rate card, where we pay the user 70% of the gross revenue for user-private ads, and 15% for publisher ads (not yet deployed; the publisher makes 70% and we take same as the user). So we get <= what users get, and will fail if our users don't like the private/anonymous ad model enough to opt in at sufficient scale that we can cover our costs. Good luck pressuring Mozilla to cut its top exec's pay from seven figures. Your words are empty.
- onyva 7y ago
  And you, sir, you were fired from Mozilla because of community pressure. I appreciate Mozilla even though I didn’t always use Firefox because of what it represents, and rejecting a CEO who’s homophobic and racist is showing the power of that community.

Vinnl 7y ago

Relevant context: 1. Mozilla only enabled Google Analytics after signing a contract with Google that that data would not be fed into Google's models. There's no reason to believe Google would violate that legal agreement. 2. The Twitter thread you linked is by a Brave employee. It should be judged by the facts it shows, but is good context to keep in mind w.r.t. their presentation.

BrendanEich 7y ago
Are you at Mozilla? That contract was referenced in a bug long ago. I'm not sure it can be enforced, given how Google's revamped Analytics 360 works.
- Vinnl 7y ago
  No I'm not. I'd imagine that a contract would be enforced by both parties respecting it, especially given that there's not that much to win for Google, and much to lose if, say, an employee would leak that it was being violated.
  - BrendanEich 7y ago
    Let's see the contract and its term, if not hear from Google that it is in effect. Sorry, but reputable blockers block GA because it is now tied into Google's overall ads/data business and they say as much in touting it, in their privacy policy even with its carve-outs, and in others' experience with it. For Mozilla to use GA instead of self-hosted Matomo is odd to me as a founder of mozilla.org (none are left at Mozilla now, FYI). We do the latter at Brave. Is it just for convenience?

reportgunner 7y ago

What happens when you turn on chrome or brave ?