Et Tu, Mozilla? Firefox 3 To Get Privacy Mode

CWmike writes "Mozilla will respond to Google's Chrome and Microsoft's IE8 with its own private-browsing, or 'porn' mode in Firefox, according to notes posted on its Web site, and is on track to deliver one in 3.1, the version that will likely go beta next month."

Comments

Realism

[lisaparratt]

What's wrong with a little realism? Viewing porn is one of the major uses of a web browser, thus such a facility is practically a no-brainer.

Re:Realism

[dc29A]

I am willing to bet it doesn't stop Adobe Flash to store "cookies" on your PC. It's pretty useless for average Joes to hide their tracks surfing pr0n since they don't know how to disable flash cookies. Worse, they aren't even aware of the existence of these cookies.

Re:Realism

[Intron]

It's sad that people don't have self control and allow themselves to be led around by their biological nature rather the logic nature we have inherited.

Why is your biological nature "wrong"? What compass are you using to tell you what's right and why is it better?

Not About Pornography

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Lets face it. Pornography has been around since the dawn of the internet and in all that time not one browser, newsreader or email client ever offered a "privacy mode" until recently. We're talking since BBS days here. Yes there are some people who would like to spin, or frame, these features as "porn mode". But this is a fairly transparent attempt to discredit what is an important, appropriate and yes disruptive new innovation.

And what has spurred this innovation? What necessity has been the mother of this invention? Porn? No. Thing far more unsettling than that. Phishers, fraudsters, malware have all played their part. People need more protection nowadays. But most of the reasons for privacy features can be summed up in one word.

Marketers.

Modern marketers are utterly relentless, completely amoral and without any scruple whatsoever. They are are with enormous databases, and the desire to fill them with as much data as they can lay their hands on. Tracking users and their habits online, and assaulting them with advertisements based on that data has become an industry in itself. Every social networking website, every online newspaper, every site that has any ability to track its users whatsoever is piping that data straight to an eager marketing department which presumably has some method concocted to throw ads back at users who would rather be left alone.

This is international information collection on an unprecedented scale in human history. To be sure, as of now this is only a practice of private enterprise, the current databases are disorganized and incompatible. But this is a new industry, essentially only a decade or so old. What will happen when its methods, theories and processes standardize? How dangerous will those databases be then?

Google is not blameless in this either. Remember that the company makes its money not on searches, but on advertisements that it offers on its search pages and on other sites. That company is tracking probably the majority of web user by now, and any site that you go to that is affiliated with Google (this includes Slashdot), dutifully makes sure that your presence their and what you are doing is made known to Seattle, so that they may better know your habits. You think they'll just sit on all that juicy marketing data till the end of time and forever "Do No Evil"? Get real. They are a private company and will do whatever they like as long as it is legal. Watch it happen.

So go ahead, call it a "porn" feature, but the reality is that those browsing for porn will probably not even bother to turn it on. It will only be used by those who understand just how dangerous so much personal data in private hands can be.

Make no mistake, this is a disruptive technology. Marketers will not like it. Webmasters will not like it. Google will not like it. So expect substantial mudslinging surrounding this issue in the months to come.

Re:Not About Pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Modern marketers are utterly relentless, completely amoral and without any scruple whatsoever. They are are with enormous databases, and the desire to fill them with as much data as they can lay their hands on.

Ok, settle down for a second and catch your breath. Good.

I work for a company that sells software and services that tracks user behavior as they travel through sites. It sees what you're clicking on, what you're searching on, how long you're taking between clicks, and a few other things. From that data, it tries to figure out what you'd be interested in purchasing. Our customers, mainly online retailers, are free to display this information and recommendations however they see fit. The default display is a simple set of static images and prices for items you might want to purchase. We don't invite users to "punch the monkey".

If you use "privacy mode", or otherwise blow your cookies away between sessions, we won't know who you are the next time you come to the site. So we have nothing to go on about who you are, so we'll probably end up showing you products that you probably aren't interested in.

In essence, I think it's an unfair assertion that marketers are, as you say, "relentless, completely amoral and without any scruple whatsoever." It's their job to try to get you to spend a little more money on their site. If you were planning on buying a $50 item, why not show you a $55 item that more people with browsing habits like you like you are buying anyway? Yes, some marketers can be pushy about that, but that has nothing to do with cookies and tracking.

Re:Not About Pornography

[xant]

Google will not like it.

really?

Google's browser is the first to include one.

Irony at it's best

[Anonymous Coward]

Pr0n mode can kill free pr0n in theory.

Pretty much every single free porn site on the Internet makes money via affiliate programs. They offer free content in an attempt to sell you a membership to the pay site that the content comes from. The way the affiliate clicks are tracked is via cookies. If every web browser has an easy way to toggle cookie-saving while browsing porn then free porn sites could end up losing a ton of money. They'll go under if such browsing practices become the norm and affiliate programs can't figure out a better way to track than cookies. And avoiding tracking is one of the obvious purposes here.

So a tip to surfers. If you have absolutely no intention of purchasing a pay-site membership ever then leave the cookies off and don't sweat it. But if you purchase porn at all then you're not doing your favourite free site(s) any service by browsing with cookies off.

Re:Pivacy, Private, or Porn Mode

[Ed Avis]

You have a login on your computer right? So that other people can't see your files? That means they cannot see your browsing history either. The only reason for a 'stealth mode' is to keep the browsing history secret from *yourself*, so it doesn't helpfully autosuggest embarrassing sites when you start typing in the awesome bar.

Re:Missed a trick

[Dak RIT]

A list of "private" sites is a pretty convenient way for somebody to figure out what sites you're going to that you don't want people to know about.

The whole point of this is to *not* leave a trail.

Re:Why a seperate mode?

[Permutation Citizen]

Because:
    * I like to be identified automatically when I open slashdot or any community forum.
    * I like to come back to the site I just found yesterday
    * I don't like to enter passwords again an again
    * When I download something, I usually intend to keep it for a while

Doesn't matter

[Oktober Sunset]

Average Joe doesn't even know what flash cookies are, let alone how to turn them off, but that doesn't matter because Average Jane doesn't know what they are either or where to look for them.

Average Joe's big worry is that Average Jane will go to check her emails and as she types the hot in hotmail, hot-teen-pussy.com comes up in the drop-down box, or worse, hot-twinks.com