Mozilla Named 'Most Trusted Internet Company For Privacy'

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Named 'Most Trusted Internet Company For Privacy'

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:54AM from the email-us-your-credit-card-details-if-you-agree dept.

redletterdave writes "Mozilla announced on Tuesday that it has been named the 'Most Trusted Internet Company For Privacy' in 2012, according to a new independent study released by the Ponemon Institute early this morning (PDF). Ponemon Institute surveyed more than 100,000 adult-aged consumers over a 15-week period ending in December 2012; of the 6,704 respondents, representing 25 different industries, Mozilla was ranked the top Internet and social media company. While this is a great achievement for Mozilla, especially considering this was their first year making the list, Mozilla's team took note of the fact that 'Internet and social media' was still the least trustworthy sector out of the 25 total industries listed. 'It means we as an industry all have a lot more work to do,' Mozilla wrote on its blog."

70 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Isn't that like winning the "Best Lohan" Award? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 09:57 · Score: 1

Just saying
1. Re:Isn't that like winning the "Best Lohan" Award? by Desler · 2013-01-29 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Or the "least skanky crackwhore".
2. Re:Isn't that like winning the "Best Lohan" Award? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 10:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  That's the same award.
3. Re:Isn't that like winning the "Best Lohan" Award? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  Shouldn't you be off trolling Usenet ...
4. Re:Isn't that like winning the "Best Lohan" Award? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 12:31 · Score: 0
  
  More likely planning the marketing for Win9.
  Slashdot is a Burson Marsteller echo chamber now. Hardly any real humans left.
Hehe by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 09:59 · Score: 0

Ponemon? Do I gotta catch them all?
1. Re:Hehe by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 11:19 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds like some godless abomination created by a brony festering in the depths of Deviantart.
2. Re:Hehe by chronokitsune3233 · 2013-01-29 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. The place you need to get to is called "Sunny Town". Once there... Well, just play the game and find out.
  
  --
  I have been a captive in America my entire life. Everybody and everything uses customary units instead of metric.
I skimmed the PDF... by TWX · 2013-01-29 10:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

...and it's all about perception and how people feel, not how the world actually works. Therefore, it may give people fuzzy/happy feelings, but it doesn't necessarily mean squat if it's not actually correct.

This is the Peoples' Choice Awards of privacy and security. And remember, when you think of how stupid the average person is, bear in mind that 50% are below that.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
1. Re:I skimmed the PDF... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 10:25 · Score: 0
  
  when you think of how stupid the average person is, bear in mind that 50% are below that.
  What you describe is (roughly) the median stupidity. Using just the mean stupidity, you can't tell what percentage of individuals is below or above. (You have to account for extraordinarily stupid or bright people.) /nitpick
2. Re:I skimmed the PDF... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  s/average/median
  Then your assertion would be true.
3. Re:I skimmed the PDF... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Given that Mozilla is the only browser maker that is not a for-profit company, maybe the people aren't so stupid.
  I'm not saying all for-profit companies are evil, but their ultimate goal is to make money, and that can easily conflict with protecting users' privacy.
  The profit motive gets you companies like IBTimes.com (one of the links in the summary) that auto plays videos, and restarts those videos if you stop them. (I'm baffled why SoulSkill would have included an IBTimes link in the summary.)
4. Re:I skimmed the PDF... by EvanED · 2013-01-29 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  It's a good thing that "average" has only one meaning which is shared with "arithmetic mean."
5. Re:I skimmed the PDF... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 10:42 · Score: 0
  
  Technically correct but actually wrong.
  Since intelligence falls on a normal distribution, the mean and median end up being the same.
6. Re:I skimmed the PDF... by Skewray · 2013-01-29 10:45 · Score: 2
  
  ...and it's all about perception and how people feel, not how the world actually works. Therefore, it may give people fuzzy/happy feelings, but it doesn't necessarily mean squat if it's not actually correct.
  Well, the Ponemon Institute brought us Pikachu, which makes me feel pretty fuzzy/happy about Mozilla.
7. Re:I skimmed the PDF... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 10:57 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah? Well, my best friend's step-sister's brother's pet-sitter's mother make $144/hour on the internet, and didn't have to click your stupid scam link to do it!
8. Re:I skimmed the PDF... by thetoadwarrior · 2013-01-29 11:48 · Score: 2
  
  Given that Firefox isn't an advertising company or someone with a second rate search engine and trying to be number 1 by snooping on your searches there is a valid case for them being better.
  
  For security, Chrome has more vulnerabilities than Firefox, it's up with IE. Google and Microsoft hold more data on you worth stealing so you're going to be more valuable target.
9. Re:I skimmed the PDF... by Kjella · 2013-01-29 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  Technically correct but actually wrong. Since intelligence falls on a normal distribution, the mean and median end up being the same.
  It doesn't fall on a normal distribution, it is normalized to give an IQ score. It's like taking the time on the 100m dash and say "You run faster than X% of the population", but it doesn't say how fast you run relative to anyone else or how quickly you'd move up or down the list of results. The reason is that we can order people by how much they answer correctly but we have no objective measure of how much smarter they had to be in order to do it.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
10. Re:I skimmed the PDF... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 13:33 · Score: 0
  
  Median is a type of average, and is in fact the average that people talk about when using distributions like intelligence.
  A lot of you computer nobbers seem to think that average=mean, but that's simply not true in normal speech. When someone talks about "the average person" they almost exclusively intend "median" - since the mean number of legs say, is about 1.999 (none have more than 2, insert penis joke here, but many have less, therefore the mean must be under 2), the mean number of appendices is about 0.95 etc But I'd say that the "average" person has 2 legs, for example.
  But of course, for the wanker who just wants to score some points on being technically correct, this gets missed. So how's about not being such a wanker in future because you look doubly stupid when someone has to point this out to you.
11. Re:I skimmed the PDF... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 14:56 · Score: 0
  
  Mozilla gets most of their income from Google, and the Googlites are dedicated to preventing privacy wherever possible. Further, by default, privacy settings in Firefox are hidden and 3rd party cookies (read "spyware") are enabled.
12. Re:I skimmed the PDF... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 14:57 · Score: 0
  
  Try skimming their Privacy Policy and TOS and comparing it to Google and Microsoft. Granted there's always room for improvement but this distinction of "most trusted" is warranted.
13. Re:I skimmed the PDF... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 20:38 · Score: 0
  
  Was going to say, Mozilla is the company that forces you to opt out of tracking giving the same fluffy nonsensical excuse that the ad industry wanted them to give about how they wont honor it if it's opt in, even though they've said they wont actually honor it anyway meaning Mozilla would as everyone who didn't fall for the ad industry spiel have been better to automatically opt people out of tracking because at least then users have something to take to the courts, or in the EU, something the EU can hold up to the industry and say look, you tracked them without their permission.
  Mozilla is in bed with the ad companies, not a company I'd exactly say is really trustworthy in terms of privacy when they opt you in to being tracked by default using an excuse that makes absolutely zero sense.
14. Re:I skimmed the PDF... by fatphil · 2013-01-29 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. If it didn't appear last year, and this year it's number one, and Mozilla hasn't significantly changed any privacy policies in the last year, that tells me that the rankings are basically more noise than signal.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
15. Re:I skimmed the PDF... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  Given that Mozilla is the only browser maker that is not a for-profit company, maybe the people aren't so stupid.
  I'm not saying all for-profit companies are evil, but their ultimate goal is to make money, and that can easily conflict with protecting users' privacy.
  So true it hurts. Wondering why this is festering at zero.
16. Re:I skimmed the PDF... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  Of course it is about perceptions and how people feel, you can tell the from the bloody title, you didn't need to even read the summary let alone the pdf to work that out There's a key word in the title, "trusted", and trust is always based on perceptions and feelings, smart people may use information to moderate their perceptions and feelings of trust, but it is still perceptions and feelings.
17. Re:I skimmed the PDF... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-01-30 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  I think a lot of it is, as someone else wrote in part, the simple fact that Firefox is the major independent (i.e., not affiliated with an OS or search company) browser. Opera was pretty much independent too, last I checked, but they don't have the penetration that Firefox does.
  
  On that basis, I'm willing to give it security points. Since they do not have a vested interest in selling your information or locking you into an OS, they are likely to have consumer interest a bit more in mind than the others.
I have the need the need for speed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 10:04 · Score: 0

Sure they protect your privacy now work on browser speed. http://lifehacker.com/browser-speed-tests/
I started using Chrome and never looked back. It is so much faster and syncs my bookmarks with my login and not some horrible password system.
Pokemon Institute? by lorinc · 2013-01-29 10:11 · Score: 0

I mean, seriously?

--
Video of some good progressive thrash music
1. Re:Pokemon Institute? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  If you can't trust the people who stuff wild animals into tiny plastic capsules and force them to fight while feeding them combat drugs, who can you trust?
2. Re:Pokemon Institute? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  What I like best about Slashdot is that I can come here, misread something, and know that someone else has already made a comment saying that they misread it too.
3. Re:Pokemon Institute? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2013-01-29 11:44 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, seriously. Professor Oak did a LOT of research before dispatching Brock, Misty, and Ash to Firefox World Headquarters with the news.
  Unfortunately, Team Rocket got there first, and Jesse, disguised in a suit, was waiting for them in Mitchell Baker's office. Things got a bit dicey for a while... but let's just say that, in the end, Team Rocket blasted off again.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
4. Re:Pokemon Institute? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  Well, one of the cute original pokemon was a multi-tailed fire-element fox.
Microsoft ranked higher than Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 10:15 · Score: 0

For companies overall:
Microsoft #17
Mozilla #20
1. Re:Microsoft ranked higher than Mozilla by manu0601 · 2013-01-29 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  For companies overall: Microsoft #17 Mozilla #20
  Yes, I saw that. This is surprising; Anyone can explain why one could have more trust in Microsoft, a for-profit company, than in non-profit Mozilla foundation? At least Mozilla does not have a financial interest to betray its users
2. Re:Microsoft ranked higher than Mozilla by Runaway1956 · 2013-01-29 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  That's easy. 90% of the market believes that a computer can't run without a Microsoft ritual blessing. With that godly blessing, computers are safe. It's a cult thing, really - get your WGA approval, run your updates, and everything is fine in computer heaven.
  Whether that faith is warranted or not is subject for another discussion.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
3. Re:Microsoft ranked higher than Mozilla by manu0601 · 2013-01-29 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  Whether that faith is warranted or not is subject for another discussion.
  I understand: trust is a faith-related notion, not a rationale one.
4. Re:Microsoft ranked higher than Mozilla by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2013-01-29 17:10 · Score: 0
  
  Mozilla sells your privacy. You are their product, the browser's their bait. Microsoft sells a product. And your privacy. But they make most of their money off other stuff, selling your privacy is just their change jar.
  It's all about motive. Now, some might wonder if someone who doesn't survive off selling your privacy will take better or worse care of it than someone who will die if anything happens to their access to your personal data, but I doubt very many think like that.
  
  --
  <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
Well by EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC · 2013-01-29 10:16 · Score: 2

Most trusted != Most trustworthy
Just sayin....

--
Howdy howdy howdy
1. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  Most trusted != Most trustworthy
  Just sayin....
  You mean like Google?
Only because of bandwagons. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 10:36 · Score: 0

Its cool to outright hate on MS on the internet now despite real facts. Its starting to become cool to hate on google and such. So the bottom line is they are considered the most trusted just because they get the least amount of mindless zealot fanboy hate.
I read the statement and it has nothing to do with real world usage security. Its just a "perception" and nothing more.
Ill stick with microsoft products since they work the best and provide the best security, because I know what I am doing. If you have security issues with MS products then its because you are a retard or lazy or just dont know how to use them in which case youre at a security risk no matter what product you use. If people would just exercise a little brain power and forethought they would all be fine.
1. Re:Only because of bandwagons. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  Haters gonna hate
  Your opinion is worth less than spam comments.
2. Re:Only because of bandwagons. by wonkey_monkey · 2013-01-29 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  Ill stick with microsoft products since they work the best and provide the best security, because I know what I am doing.
  Well that's the wrong attitude for a start. A company should provide the best security because they know what they're doing, not you.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Alternate Headline by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 10:41 · Score: 0

No internet company makes the top 10 list of most trusted companies, and Mozilla achieved DEAD LAST in the top 20 list.
Companies that beat them include:
IBM (Evil Empire 1)
eBay (how exactly is eBay not an internet company?)
Verizon (Ever read one of their contracts?)
Disney (Evil Empire 2)
AT&T (seriously? your PROUD you got beaten by the company who's logo is the death star?)
Mozilla should be downright EMBARRASSED by this list.
Not really your concern... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 10:54 · Score: 0

'It means we as an industry all have a lot more work to do"
Does a window maker think he has work to do when the view outside of the windows he's installed into a house are bad?
What did they expect? by steelfood · 2013-01-29 10:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Social media, by definition, is an invasion of privacy. Except it's usually not some faceless corporation invading your privacy, but yourself, and the people with whom you socialize.
You can't socialize without giving up some privacy, plain and simple. And you're not going to be able to do socialize online, where all data is stored digitally and can be copied on a whim, without exposing your socializing to the entire world. Whether the rest of the world cares is another matter altogether.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
1. Re:What did they expect? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 19:29 · Score: 0
  
  this wasn't about privacy, it specifically said trusted. it's not that people mind sharing info with fb or google, it's that you can't really trust them to know what they are doing with your info. tremendous difference.
2. Re:What did they expect? by cerberusss · 2013-01-29 23:01 · Score: 1
  
  Social media, by definition, is an invasion of privacy.
  True. We are socializing here on Slashdot.
  Slashdot is owned by Dice.
  
  --
  8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
3. Re:What did they expect? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 00:27 · Score: 0
  
  And people ask me why I always post anonymous.
  What I do online is no one's business but my own.
4. Re:What did they expect? by 0racle · 2013-01-30 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  You can't socialize without giving up some privacy, plain and simple.
  How do you figure?
  
  --
  "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
5. Re:What did they expect? by Sockatume · 2013-01-30 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is choice. If I invite you into my home, that's OK. If you invade my home uninvited, that's not. Likewise the voluntary relinquishing of privacy inherent in all social interaction is distinct from the involuntary invasion of privacy which people - yes, even those who use the internet to communicate - are opposed to.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
6. Re:What did they expect? by syockit · 2013-01-31 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  I take it that the only home you own on the net is your own computing device. Elsewhere, you're just squatting.
  
  --
  Democracy is for the people; you only vote once per season and we'll do the rest of the work for you don't have to.
AllThingsD by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 11:21 · Score: 0

I like the big notice about tracking cookies at the top every time I visit their site. It actually explains what tracking cookies are and how you might avoid getting them.
bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 11:41 · Score: 0

firefox's default search engine choice is proof enough.
No Brainer? by DavidD_CA · 2013-01-29 12:38 · Score: 1

What would a company like Mozilla have to do to offend our privacy concerns anyway?
Companies like Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Yahoo have all kinds of information on us. It's part of their business model to walk that fuzzy line between privacy and profit.
But Mozilla, with a browser and a few other auxiliary apps, plus a website that very few people even use beyond downloading apps, just doesn't have the capacity to piss people off like the other companies do.
I might as well say that New Egg has an excellent privacy record when compared to Microsoft and Google. Or The Onion. Or the florist down the street.

--
-David
1. Re:No Brainer? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 13:00 · Score: 0
  
  What would a company like Mozilla have to do to offend our privacy concerns anyway?
  Companies like Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Yahoo have all kinds of information on us. It's part of their business model to walk that fuzzy line between privacy and profit.
  But Mozilla, with a browser and a few other auxiliary apps, plus a website that very few people even use beyond downloading apps, just doesn't have the capacity to piss people off like the other companies do.
  They write a browser. They could use it to watch user's behaviors and do creepy things. I think you mean they do not have a motive to violate anyone's privacy. Which is true, to a point. They get most of their money from google.
2. Re:No Brainer? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 15:30 · Score: 0
  
  They ignored the extension take down requests from Americas corporate imbeciles who seek to make your privacy their bitch.
  For that alone they deserve infinite praise.
3. Re:No Brainer? by Runaway1956 · 2013-01-29 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  They could write contracts with Microsoft, Facebook, Google and more, in which they assist in tracking users, for a fee. It seems pretty obvious that hasn't happened yet. I don't see it happening in the near to medium future, either. The distant future? Hell, anything can happen twenty years down the road.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
cat /dev/zero /proc/sense/humor by raymorris · 2013-01-29 12:53 · Score: 1

It's a joke, not a math test.
Just waiting by hduff · 2013-01-29 13:11 · Score: 1

I'm just waiting for some Micrsoft shill to name Microsoft the "World's Most Trusted Internet Company For Privacy".
In 3 . . . 2 . . .

--
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
1. Re:Just waiting by bheerssen · 2013-01-30 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Too late.
  
  --
  (Score: -1, Stupid)
Lying to yourself by raymorris · 2013-01-29 13:11 · Score: 2

Ill stick with microsoft products since they work the best and provide the best security, because I know what I am doing. If you have security issues with MS products then its because you are a retard or lazy or just dont know how to use them in which case youre at a security risk no matter what product you use.
You like Microsoft. Cool, that's your prerogative. Lying to yourself can cost you, though.
I've been doing security full time for sixteen years. You'll find my name on CVEs where I've found flaws to instantly take out wikipedia and other top tier sites. That pretty much puts me at opposite end from "retard" when it comes to network security. When DHS and I tell you Microsoft products are full of giant security holes, we know what we're talking about. Pretending otherwise and getting the least bit sloppy while running IE will get you owned

. Example - Java exploit in Chrome on Linux could crash a browser tab. The same exploit in IE lets me install a rootkit because IE is integrated with the system shell.
This Story Stinks Of PR BS by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 16:59 · Score: 0

What Mozilla is known for right now is every single machine I own all popping up the obnoxious cartoon raccoon insisting that I update plugins even though I had specifically disabled plugin updating in every install. Bringing up about:config and disabling it there wasn't enough to make it stop. Mozilla ignored what I wanted it to do and connected to the mothership to download lists of plugin versions anyway. Finally I found a workaround which didn't require adding mozilla's IP space to my firewalls or uninstalling mozilla (which I had done on several machines), which was to bump the installed plugin versions to 99 in the about:config list.
Countless people have been burned by this mozilla crap and have been uninstalling in droves, and I'll bet anything that that's why this bit of astroturf has appeared here on slashdot.
1. Re:This Story Stinks Of PR BS by Sockatume · 2013-01-30 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you know what astroturfing is.
  I'm also bemused at why you continue to use a piece of software that drives you to such rage. It is not as though there is a shortage of browsers.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
There is no such thing as privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 18:20 · Score: 0

Thete is the right to be secure in one's papers and effects,, but the Constitution doesn't even mention the word "privacy". Now go home and put on your tinfoil hats.
Hu?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 19:14 · Score: 0

Firefox, by default, asks Google if the site you intend to visit is secure (Edition->Preference->Security->Block sites that...).
Is that privacy respect?
Mozilla is Google's whore by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 00:42 · Score: 0

Most trusted != Most trustworthy
Just sayin....
You mean like Google?
The two are sleeping with one another. For years, Firefox' purpose has been to woo users to Google while keeping their browser defaults as privacy-unfriendly as they can get away with.
Microsoft beat them by viperidaenz · 2013-01-30 07:49 · Score: 1

It's just Microsoft didn't fit in the "Internet & Social Media industry" sub-category. Mozilla is 20th in the top 20 overall. So Internet Explorer beats Firefox.
Hell, Amazon is number 3. How do you think they make money? Selling you targeted stuff.
When you buy XYZ from some company via Amazon, do you think they don't get told that it was because the customer clicked on a "we think you'll also like..."?
Google's location-aware browsing in Firefox by cpm99352 · 2013-01-30 17:19 · Score: 1

Maybe I'm behind the times, but I was unimpressed to learn about Mozilla Firefox handing off geographic tracking to Google. Uninstall instructions here.

about:config
In the Filter box, type geo.enabled
Double click on the geo.enabled preference
Location-Aware Browsing is now disabled.