Slashdot Mirror


Ubuntu's New Firefox Is Watching You

sukotto writes "Ubuntu recently released an unannounced and experimental 'multisearch' extension to Firefox alpha 3, apparently in an effort to improve the default behavior of new tabs and of search. In a response to one of the initial bug reports the maintainers mentioned that the extension's other purposes were 'collecting the usage data' and 'generating revenue.' Since this extension installs by itself and offers no warning about potential privacy violations, quite a few people (myself included) feel pretty unhappy. The only way to opt out is to disable the extension manually via Tools > Add-ons." Most posters to this Ubuntu forum thread are not happy about multisearch.

23 of 330 comments (clear)

  1. Not new by sopssa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is not actually far away from how Firefox generates its revenue too - from ad clicks in Google search and by direct sponsoring from Google.

    The two main ways to monetarize and support OSS projects is giving support and ads. In the later case you always lose some of your privacy. Developing Linux and its distro's need money aswell. You could choose a distro that is financed in other way (maybe by you), use commercial software that doesn't do this or be fine with generating some ad income to support the development. "Perfect" package is usually impossible to obtain because of financial limitations.

    Google is build completely around this model too and it seems to work good for them - even if people lose some of their privacy. Hell, slashdot is maintained by ad revenue too. Another distro that also does same kind of stuff is Linux Mint.

    Its nothing new, but it might surprise those who believe in pure, not-revenue-generating OSS. It's how the free for user projects are financed.

    1. Re:Not new by SBrach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      WTF. Way to give Mozilla a free pass because it's OSS. You know, I use both open source and closed source software but I guess I am the only one who judges both by the same standard. What an asshole I am huh.

    2. Re:Not new by elzurawka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference is that we all know that Google is a giant Advertiser.
      Most people are under the impression that Ubuntu is a free OS, not an Ad Sponsored/Data mining revenue oriented OS.

      --
      -EL
    3. Re:Not new by Score+Whore · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lots of people like sex. Very few people like to be raped. The difference is in the consent. Same situation here.

    4. Re:Not new by jim_v2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      God damn...is this reddit or something? YOUR BROWSER ISN'T COLLECTING ANYTHING. You do a Google search through the Ubuntu Google page, and then Canonical can see some aggregate usage data with Google's tools. The browser isn't doing anything other than what it normally does. Don't be a fucking drama queen.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  2. Big projects need funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's no point denying it: Big projects need funding. Funding creates dependencies. Since there is no way around the need for funding, it is of utmost importance that dependencies and privacy implications are disclosed. So Ubuntu: FAIL.

  3. Outrage calibration by jpmorgan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, here's the outrage from when Microsoft slipped the .NET Framework Assistant into Firefox without asking. Adjust your outrage accordingly...

    1. Re:Outrage calibration by SBrach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right, people were outraged Microsoft installed a .net plugin but it is ok for Ubuntu to datamine my Firefox activities because it is free and I need to pay for it somehow. That is basically what the OP was saying. Thats bullshit.

    2. Re:Outrage calibration by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Both are annoying but one is a lesser evil

      The lesser of two evils is still evil.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Outrage calibration by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But you have to realize that the reason why people use Ubuntu is because it is pre-configured and you don't have to do much to get it how you wanted. Ubuntu wasn't much "better" than Debian, other than the fact it had regular releases and was pre-configured. If Ubuntu stops being pre-configured how most people like it, it will stop being used. This is a suicidal move for Ubuntu which has been losing mindshare after the 8.10 and 9.04 releases which dumbed-down the distro to a new low (the annoying update window which pops up as a window, removing the useful CTRL+ALT+Backspace shortcut, the notification boxes that can't be quickly closed, etc). Ubuntu needs all the good press they can get, I don't understand why they would risk it.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:Outrage calibration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is nothing the least bit evil about the .NET extension, autistic man-children just threw a bitchfit because the word "Microsoft" makes them confused and angry.

      Notice the lack of anger about the intrusive Apple QuickTime plugin, which fucks over Firefox's MIME handling and is practically impossible to remove.

    5. Re:Outrage calibration by gd2shoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a problem anytime someone loads software on my machine without my permission. I decide what is an acceptable security/privacy risk - no one else. For example, if I give MS permission to update their broken OS, I'm not giving them permission to add security vulnerabilities to my browser. I don't know about this Ubuntu issue, but people are trying to make it sound similar, and I have sympathy (at least for the moment).

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    6. Re:Outrage calibration by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Part of the problem, if not the larger problem, is the ability to install extensions in FF without being able to remove them. Thats a FF feature. Why is it even there? The MS devs saw it and chose it because they probably didnt want end users screwing up .net too easily. If you want the power to do an easy GUI-based uninstall you need to tell the Firefox people to do so. That will stop further abuse of this feature.

    7. Re:Outrage calibration by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >What about Bittorrent's "stealth" firefox add-on?

      Or the quicktime add-on that screws over the MIME settings?

      I really wish slashdot was a more even keeled place. Its anti-MS all the time, which takes away time from other offenders, many of which are much more serious.

    8. Re:Outrage calibration by jim_v2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's stupid. Do you stop and check which files and registry entries that every program that YOU install/update places on your system? Oh, you don't? And you install them anyway? Oh, well then you ARE giving them permission to install all that stuff.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    9. Re:Outrage calibration by Miseph · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lack? that thing pisses me off. I honestly couldn't care any less about the .Net plugin, I'm a teensy bit miffed that installed without so much as asking, but at least it didn't FUBAR my media settings and force all .mpg and .avi files to attempt to play in-browser through their shitty plugin that doesn't even work and throws a thousand error messages every time, rather than do what I actually want (open and play in VLC). Maybe I'd be pissed about Microsoft's stealth plugin if I had some other awesome way of running .Net web-apps, but I honestly can't think of any that I have even seen, let alone actually use or would care how they open.

      Oh yeah, I call bullshit on Ubuntu. They shouldn't have stealthed that in, and because they didn't I will uninstall it ASAP (once I reboot into Ubuntu, that is). If they had announced it, even put a little window on the screen asking if it would be ok to install it, pretty pretty please with sugar on top, we promise it won't hurt and it will help us generate some revenue so that we can keep working on the project... I honestly would have said yes. I wouldn't really mind if they collect some data and make money off of it so long as it doesn't noticeably degrade performance and so long as they told me about it first, but that doesn't mean I take kindly to anyone presuming it's ok for them to do so without my knowledge and permission.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  4. Free as in speech by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most people are under the impression that Ubuntu is a free OS, not an Ad Sponsored/Data mining revenue oriented OS.

    Canonical is Free to distribute a computer program that watches how people use it as long as people who use the program know what's going on. But because Firefox/Iceweasel/whatever is free software, you are also Free to download the source code, rip out the data mining, and rebuild it, or to hire someone to do so for you.

    1. Re:Free as in speech by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All true statements, but pointless because you left out at least one freedom: people are also free to complain until Ubuntu does something about it to save their brand.

    2. Re:Free as in speech by mattventura · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not just that they are doing that, but that they do so without warning. Of course they are free to put that in their software, and you have every right to disable it, but (from my understanding) they are doing this without telling the user. So how would you know to disable it if you didn't know it existed?

    3. Re:Free as in speech by Abreu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Canonical is Free to distribute a computer program that watches how people use it as long as people who use the program know what's going on. But because Firefox/Iceweasel/whatever is free software, you are also Free to download the source code, rip out the data mining, and rebuild it, or to hire someone to do so for you.

      Emphasis mine.

      The problem here is that Canonical did not ask for permission.

      For the record, I would be perfectly willing to use a reasonably private datamining program to support Ubuntu, as long as everyone is clearly informed on what it can do and what it can't.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    4. Re:Free as in speech by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is it that when MS releases something, everyone darkly talks about hidden backdoors, but when an open source vendor releases someone, people complain that the vendor wasn't completely forthcoming in the release notes?

      Because not everybody has the skill and time to decipher megabytes of source code, especially potentially obfuscated source code. Nor does everybody have the money to hire someone to do so. Also because free software is the relative newcomer and it has to be better in order to displace its entrenched proprietary counterparts.

  5. Re:Do not panic by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Perhaps I didn't word that quite right.

    The multisearch add-on was only intended for the pre-release versions, as part of a research project. It is very unlikely that it will be included in the final Karmic release in the same form as its current incarnation.

    There, fixed that for me.
    My point was, anyway, that the Ubuntu devs didn't intend to make this Multisearch a part of Firefox as we know it. Some of the same concepts, maybe, but they will assuredly be more fleshed out, more intuitive, than in the Alphas. And next time, maybe they'll tell us first?

    --
    Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
  6. The Real Issue by Apreche · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think anyone begrudges Ubuntu taking advantage of a perfectly acceptable revenue model. That's not the problem here.

    The problem is that Ubuntu is shipping a modified version of Firefox instead of the default Firefox shipped by Mozilla. Sure, both Ubuntu and Debian ship patched versions of just about every package they include in the repository. But the overwhelming majority of those patches don't noticeably effect the user experience.

    Firefox, on the other hand, is pretty much the #1 most important part of the user experience in Ubuntu. It's the application most people are going to use more than anything else. In fact, after Ubuntu is installed, the user will probably spend more time interacting with Firefox than with all the rest of Ubuntu combined. It's not inaccurate to say it's a Firefox machine, as opposed to an Ubuntu or Linux machine.

    Since Firefox is the most important part of the user experience, the users don't want Firefox changed in any way. They want the default Firefox as shipped by Mozilla. They don't want the named changed to Shiretoko or IceWeasel. They don't want the icons changed. They don't want weird extensions that change behaviour. They also don't want updates to come from Ubuntu repositories, as they do for every other package. They want the newest version of Firefox from Mozilla at the exact moment that Mozilla ships it.

    I understand the reasoning behind Ubuntu and Debians policies, but I think it is obvious that Firefox trumps Ubuntu. They should make a special exception for it. Just ship the raw Firefox as released by Mozilla. Don't modify it in any way whatsoever. The world is just getting more browser centric. The operating system is just the code that talks between the browser and the hardware. You can do anything you want to the OS, but don't touch the browser or you'll lose all the users you worked so hard to gain.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!