this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024

223 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

1083 readers

3 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml

223

Mozilla hit with privacy complaint over Firefox user tracking (www.reuters.com)

submitted 1 month ago by geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.ml

51 comments fedilink hide all child comments

STOCKHOLM, Sept 25 (Reuters) - Vienna-based advocacy group NOYB on Wednesday said it has filed a complaint with the Austrian data protection authority against Mozilla accusing the Firefox browser maker of tracking user behaviour on websites without consent.

NOYB (None Of Your Business), the digital rights group founded by privacy activist Max Schrems, said Mozilla has enabled a so-called “privacy preserving attribution” feature that turned the browser into a tracking tool for websites without directly telling its users.

Mozilla had defended the feature, saying it wanted to help websites understand how their ads perform without collecting data about individual people. By offering what it called a non-invasive alternative to cross-site tracking, it hoped to significantly reduce collecting individual information.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] lattrommi@lemmy.ml 84 points 1 month ago (7 children)

All the naysayers in these comments read like shills and if they aren't, they really should read how the tracking in question works. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution?as=u&utm_source=inproduct

While it was kinda lame for Mozilla to add it with it already opted-in the way they did, they were still completely open about how it works from the start with a link right next to the feature in settings (the same link pasted above) and it's far less invasive than the other mainstream browsers.

It can be turned off too, easily. It requires unchecking a checkbox. No jumping through 10 different menus trying to figure out how to turn it off, like a certain other browser does with its monstrous tracking and data collection machine.

With ublock origin it's also moot, since ublock origin blocks all the ads anyways.

Call me a fanboy if you want, I wont care. Firefox is still the superior browser in my opinion.

[–] ReversalHatchery 44 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I think a big part of the problem is that they didn't show anyone a notification or an onboarding dialog or whatever about this feature, when it got introduced.

Firefox is still the superior browser in my opinion.

or the least bad, as I have been thinking about it lately

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think a big part of the problem is that they didn't show anyone a notification or an onboarding dialog or whatever about this feature, when it got introduced.

Right. Not only didn't they notify anybody, but they took to Reddit to defend the decision not to notify anybody:

we consider modal consent dialogs to be a user-hostile distraction from better defaults, and do not believe such an experience would have been an improvement here.

Which is strange, because Mozilla has no problem with popups in general.

[–] lattrommi@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah, as I said it was pretty lame how they added it in. I will repeat that I think it's still not as bad as how other mainstream browsers add unwanted features but I'm out of the loop there and could be wrong.

Strange, only once do I recall seeing a pop up from Firefox, which was letting me know another browser was trying to become my default browser which I did not do or want. So in that case it was useful, as it was Edge and I did not want Edge to be my default browser. That was years ago, back when I still used Windows. Not saying it doesn't happen of course, you have links I could check which I assume show it does, but I have not personally witnessed it happen in a long time.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 6 points 1 month ago

Librewolf

[–] lattrommi@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

That's probably the better way of putting it. As far as mainstream browsers go.

[–] Engywuck@lemm.ee 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Call me a fanboy if you want,

I will.

It can be turned off too, easily.

Same for Chrome.

With ublock origin it’s also moot, since ublock origin blocks all the ads anyways.

This is a non-argument; uBO ins't even developed by Mozilla, so they don't deserve credit for it.

[–] ludicolo@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nah. Turning that feature on by default already set in stone for me their willingness to test the waters. If you don't think auto-enabling anti-privacy features is a problem I don't know what to tell you. It may be "small" right now, but just wait and see what else they will try to sneak in.

Use Librewolf and Mull instead.

[–] lattrommi@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I use Mull on my phone. Haven't gotten around to playing with Librewolf but it is on my list of things to do.

I don't consider the addition to be an anti-privacy feature however. I'd like to see someone change my mind about that.

[–] ludicolo@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Any company that is willing to enable options (such as advertising) without users permission/consent is anti privacy. While it may not be a big deal for you now, wait to see what else they try to explain away. You act as if ublock is just automatically installed for users, thus making this not a big deal. what about the thousands if not millions of users on default firefox? The fact that Mozilla did this without letting the user know it is on by default, is inherently anti privacy. Hell I would argue turning it on by default is inherently anti privacy. Especially when they try to explain it away on reddit when they faced backlash. "There has to be a reason our users are upset? Am I the bad guy? No it's the users who are bad!" It is a reminder that no company is your friend. This is a test to see what they can and cannot get away with. A test to see if the users notice/if enough would really jump ship to create an impact on their product.

I jumped ship as soon as this feature was found. Fuck that.

Librewolf is fantastic, it's FOSS Firefox. I have had absolutley no issues getting firefox extensions to work with librewolf.

[–] lattrommi@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You seem to have misunderstood what i said. You fail to address the actual concept i refer to and the attitude with which you do this is not productive. it's insulting, assumptive and hostile.

are you sure you read my comment correctly? you spouted off about tangential issues in what appears to me, a sort of wild rage. you make an accusation and assumptions about me and how i act. you trash mozillas reaction to the outcry of their addition. you speculate a conspiracy theory about mozilla only trying to get away with stuff and hypothesize about them being ignorant and clueless.

i get it, you have strong feelings about privacy. you now hate mozilla for thier treachery. this was the final straw that made you jump ship. i'm glad you quickly found a browser that works for you. thanks for the unsolicited endorsement of your personal solution. good to hear that it has absolutely no issues with extensions made for firefox. which librewolf was forked from... so why wouldn't they? is getting in a one way shouting match meant to convince people to convert to another browser?

my statement was intended as invitation for someone to provide an argument as to how the actual addition to firefox is not privacy respecting, like the actual inner workings of it. not assumptions about its creators or their motives or the method of its introduction or how the nefarious villians behind such great injustice must be burned at the stake. not the far reaching ramifications it might lead to. what is it doing that makes one persons personal privacy specifically affected?

[–] ludicolo@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Please explain how I came off as insulting? Nowhere in my statement was it meant to come off as insulting. If you are referring to the quote "am I the bad guy" I was talking about mozilla and trying to use the principle skinner meme in text format. It was a joke. It wasn't directed at you. My entire point is to not trust companies. There is no good company. Mozilla was doing good things but the fact of the matter is they put in an unnessescary feature and enabled it by default. Giving users control of settings they want right out of the gate is pro privacy, when you start choosing what you think is best for the user. That is anti-privacy.

To you that is "kinda lame" but you then explain it away by saying "at least it isn't as bad as other browsers that make you jump through hoops!" That is where we fundamentally disagree. Bad is still bad for me, and my line is unmovable. Whereas for you there is a line you are willing to move. You asked me why it was inherently anti-privacy and I explained that any company willing to enable a slimy feature by default like this is on the path to become anti-privacy/already is. what you confuse for hostility was me informing you on my posiition.

This isn't some conspiracy theory, way to be reductive. Companies always require growth and profit. If you think this is a conspiracy theory I have no idea how we even continue this conversation. Mozilla doesn't give two shits about you or I. Google started off as a company with the slogan "do no evil" look at how that is going. Do you trust that Google still is doing no evil because they had a slogan? No, you don't trust Google because they have built up this anti-privacy reputation. That started with a simple search engine.

Mozilla is testing the waters in what they can get away with. I was trying to provide alternatives for people who like Firefox but don't know where to go. I am actually trying to provide solutions rather than explain away a companies behavior as you seem to be doing (And you called us the shills which is ironic). If you don't like this and are worried about the implications there are other options.

Jesus Christ and you called me assumptive. Did I say anywhere to burn the creators of the Mozilla CORPORATION at the stake? No. Did I say anywhere that I hate mozilla? No. Did I say anywhere that the creators of the Mozilla Foundation are "nefarious villains" ? No. Did I say anywhere about mozilla being ignorant and clueless? No. They know exactly what they are doing and that is the problem. I think that companies are emotionless entities that seek profit over well being.

Also where was this "wild rage" you talk about. TBH your reply is more insulting than my response. Talk about pot calling the kettle black.

Please tell me why this feature needed to be on by default? The absolute necessary reason this feature had to be turned on for every user. Why the user couldn't turn it on themselves? Do you think the user is too stupid to know what is best for themselves? If they came up with a pop up for you that says "this feature tracks you, do you want to enable it?" would you turn it on?

"not the far reaching ramifications it might lead to." Oh I get it, you only care if it is harming you now (which it is). Not what these actions could lead to in the future. You are like a frog in a boiling pot of water. The thing is this shit is gradual. My argument is simply stating that this is the start of something you may not want to be a part of in the future.

In the blogpost you link they specifically say that this feature tracks you but not in the normal cookie way you are used to. Tracking is still tracking and it's gross. Tracking is anti-privacy do you agree? Tracking should not be enabled by default. Period. Tracking as an out of the box feature and not something a user chooses to opt into is anti-privacy.

If you wanted a specific type of answer for your "invitation" then be more specific when you ask. You replied to me with that question, I gave you my answer and you didn't like it.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

All the naysayers in these comments read like shills

Amusing people of what you are guilty of. Sounds familiar...

[–] lattrommi@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

Yes, how amusing indeed. Unless you meant to type 'assuming'? Either way, I'm more of a fanboy, not a shill. Shill's get paid. Fanboys just like their product.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

is this something I need to do every single update?

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

Not if you switch browsers.

It's been a wild ride, but it's time to get off.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 month ago

Pest vs Cholera situation here...
Firefox should do an opt-in and they usually open new page with major updates with a pretty whats new changelog.
Just make it a headline topic ffs.

Regarding it's just clicking this one textbox:
Remember: Businesses also use Firefox. If you want to protect even a shred of your co-workers or clients you need to set up a fuck-load of tools to mass-disable this one little checkbox.

[–] prosp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Oh, but when you say you can easily turn off all the crypto crap from Brave, the bitches start crying. And second, for some bitches, it seems like firing an employee who has cancer is better somehow than donating against same-sex marriage. There are levels of evil, and I know who’s the lesser evil between the two.

[–] Icalasari@fedia.io 32 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Hope this results in Firefox changing it to be opt in and not result in Firefox going the way of the dodo - We can't have Chromium be the only option, and without somebody developing base Firefox, the forks are going to die off

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I could see tor browser continuing to be developed. There are enough users who are technical enough to take on a browser project.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah but Firefox and signal are both stalling and taking weird routes otherwise. It feels like people in charge either don't understand the usebase or just botching it on purposes while getting paid out.

It is OS so if it gets that bad, adults will need to pitch and pay a team to get the job done to cater to our needs. Devs can't slave for us for free at some point enjoyers will have to pay for all Foss goodness.

Shit ain't free and you don't win wars without funding. While most of US is poor AF or don't give a fuck, I am pretty sure avg fediverse enjoyer is in a bit stronger economic position.

Either way, we know big tech is coming for all of us...

[–] rettetdemdativ@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago

How is Signal taking weird routes? I know about their weird payment system thing with their own shitcoin, but has anything been added more recently? I'm quite happy that they finally added usernames.

[–] prosp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

That battle is lost. Wait for ladybird or servo if you have any hope.

[–] wuphysics87@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 month ago

It isn't about indvidual privacy. It's about not further empowering the wealthy and the entities that serve them. I'm disappointed with Mozilla, but this seems to have become par for the course

[–] voluble@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

As a user, 'privacy preserving attribution' is unappealing for a few reasons.

It seems it would overwhelmingly benefit a type of website that I think is toxic for the internet as a whole - AI generated pages SEO'd to the gills that are designed exclusively as advertisement delivery instruments.
It's a tool that quantitatively aids in the refinement of clickbait, which I believe is an unethical abuse of human psychology.
Those issues notwithstanding, it's unrealistic to assume that PPA will make the kind of difference that Mozilla thinks it might. I believe it's naive to imagine that any advertiser would prefer PPA to the more invasive industry standard methods of tracking. It would be nice if that wasn't the case, but, I don't see how PPA would be preferable for advertisers, who want more data, not less.

As a user, having more of my online activity available and distributed doesn't help or benefit me in any way.

[–] GravelPieceOfSword@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

Kudos for putting together good reasons that you don't like PPA, while also acknowledging that Mozilla is trying to solve a problem.

Yours is one of the very few reasonable objections I've read IMO - when the PPA outrage first erupted, I read through how it worked. Unique ID + website unaware of interaction, but browser recognizing, then feeding it to an intermediate aggregator that anonymizes data by aggregating from multiple users without sharing their IDs, with the aim of trying to find a middle ground seems fair to me. Especially with the opt-out being so easy.

However, your points about classes clickbait encouragement, SEO feeding, and the uncertainty that this will solve the web spamminess as it is are valid concerns.

[–] Engywuck@lemm.ee 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

"B... but Mozilla fights for privacy and the free internet!!!11!!11!!"

Well deserved

[–] dr-robot@fedia.io 9 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Turning the feature on by default is bad, but I don't think that legal complaints are the way to go as well as the aggressive tone of NOYB. Firefox is the only browser developed and maintained professionally which has the potential of offering some privacy on the web. Given the importance of web browsers volunteer work just won't cut it with the amount of features and security concerns that a browser needs.

NOYB would've done much better by talking to Mozilla directly and advocating for them to do the right thing going for a legal complaint as the final nuclear option. If the was the case, then good that there's a complaint, but the article does not indicate the any of this happened.

[–] Hirom 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

NOYB has the right to send a complaint if it think a company infringe upon right to privacy. Mozilla isn't entitled to special treatment or special notice before filling a complaint.

Mozilla should have expected this. They claim to defend users privacy so they should understand why consent for data collection is important. Also there was public outcry and criticism of opt-out, and yet they haven't backed down.

If Mozilla resolve these issues, NOYB could ask for the complaint to be dropped. I hope they do resolve this, and do drop the complaint.

[–] ReversalHatchery 5 points 1 month ago

there is this approach where if the neighbor is loud, you first try to speak with them, and if they don't care then you go to the police. have you heard of it?

[–] veniasilente@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

NOYB would’ve done much better by talking to Mozilla directly and advocating for them to do the right thing going for a legal complaint as the final nuclear option. I

It has been already vastly demonstrated by Mozilla, that going to them and talking to them about how they shouldn't do shitty things doesn't work.

If it takes legal action to even try and save the browser, I'm all for it.

[–] dr-robot@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Okay, but what if after all this legal action Mozilla decides that it's no longer worth serving the privacy conscious crowd? Which browser will you use then?

Things only happen in a desirable direction if there is dialogue. Linus made the decision about making Linux GPL but he is against aggressive enforcement. He thinks it's much smarter to go and slowly convince the offending parties that it's in their benefit.

[–] veniasilente@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Okay, but what if after all this legal action Mozilla decides that it’s no longer worth serving the privacy conscious crowd? Which browser will you use then?

Firefox.

Just because the execs decide to stop serving the software, doesn't mean the copies (and source code!) already out in the wild will automagickally stop functioning. You'll still be able to visit websites the day after, the month after, the year after... And there's still the devs, since they're not the execs.

By the time there's issues, there'll still be the forks. Someone will have already step up to fork and keep the work on their own, too; the name just weighs enough that someone will want to be "the next Firefox" (not "the next Mozilla"). Or even better, the devs (obvs not the execs) will have jumped ship into any one of the various alternative projects such as ladybird, or might even have started a new project from scratch, hopefully intending for it to be a leaner and better browsr.

[–] dr-robot@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sorry, but I don't believe that's realistic. Devs need to be paid. To be paid they need execs. Donations might sustain a small project, but not a web browser. Linux is developed primarily by devs employed by the big corporations. It would never survive on donations and volunteer labour. Same for Firefox. A browser is too complicated to be run as a GitHub project.

[–] veniasilente@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

You can have one or two execs, as a treat; but certainly they don't need to be paid crazy figures like what has been the case with Mozilla as of late. It's not like they're that important, in particular for the kind of project something like Firefox is (which could do with eg.: coop governance).

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This hope just feels like cope to me. Glad you have a positive outlook on life regardless.

[–] veniasilente@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

No hope, no cope. Just a basic understanding on how the HTTP infrastructure and time dilation work.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Now now. If Mozilla is breaking the law here, of course someone would report them for it. There's no need to shoot the messenger when everything was predictable.

[–] Nytefyre@kbin.melroy.org 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh the Firefox fanboys be downvoting. What's that now, guys? Do you think you're still better than Chrome/Google? Didn't think so!

Would've been a different story if Mozilla backpedaled and apologized by not allowing this to happen. But they're defending it, which means they INTENDED it. You've got nothing, fanboys.

Fuck Firefox.

[–] narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Show 'em, that'll teach these nasty fanboys! Reads like writing that got you a big dopamine rush.

I agree, commenting "Use Firefox!!!1!11" on every post remotely related to (other) browsers doesn't help anybody, just like commenting "Use Linux!!!1!11" on every post about a vulnerability in Windows doesn't contribute anything meaningful at all.

Look, I also disagree with what Mozilla is doing here and yes, they 100% deserve the flak they are getting for it. But - like most things in life - it's not black and white. Firefox could still be less intrusive to your privacy than Chrome (I'm not saying it necessarily is, but it could be that way). A different example: your mail provider could track every time you login to your account, or it could analyze and track the content of every email you receive. One is clearly worse than the other, right?

Which browser(s) do you recommend/use?

[–] prosp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The fair comparison here shouldn't be Chrome here, but Vivaldi or better yet, Brave. Which of the both are less evil? Firing a cancer employee or donating to prevent same-sex marriage?

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hmm, interesting. I would expect NOYB to not just file complaints for no reason, but my understanding of PPA is that things get aggregated, which would make it irrelevant for the GDPR. Either I'm missunderstanding something, or NOYB or Mozilla is...

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

User-unique gets collected, and then the user-unique data sent to a remote server.

Only on the remote server will this data be aggregated, or so Mozilla says.

[–] kixik@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago

Arkenfox user.js, or derivative broswers like Librewolf on the desktop and Mull on android are there for a reason. Firefox default settings are not the safer, although it has all the knobs to make it a much better experience.

[–] gon@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

doesn't sound good

[–] bravesilvernest@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago

I see these comments are nothing but good discussion!

[–] taanegl 2 points 1 month ago

I'm using the Zen browser, hoping Mozilla comes back to us :( unfortunately, dialectical materialism is a hell of a drug lol

Stop it, Mozilla.

[–] leanleft@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

people refuse to boycott anything, for any amount of time. thats what leads to getting to be so expensive.
in reality, it would be ideal if everyone was willling to boycott anything (maybe everything ) for any amount of time ( possibly up to a max of infinity )

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

so, beyond cookies is it?

load more comments