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.

15 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 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.

    3. 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 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.
  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 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.
    3. 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!