Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Testing an Opt-Out System For Firefox Telemetry Collection (bleepingcomputer.com)
An anonymous reader writes: "Mozilla engineers are discussing plans to change the way Firefox collects usage data (telemetry), and the organization is currently preparing to test an opt-out clause so they could collect more data relevant to the browser's usage," reports Bleeping Computer. "In a Google Groups discussion that's been taking place since Monday, Mozilla engineers cite the lack of usable data the Foundation is currently receiving via its data collection program. The problem is that Firefox collects data from a very small fraction of its userbase, and this data may not be representative of the browser's real usage." Mozilla would like to fix this by flipping everyone's telemetry setting to enabled and adding an opt-out clause. Engineers also plan to embed Google's RAPPAR project [1, 2] for anonymous data collection.
Firefox, faced with a shrinking user base after the extension extinction event that is Firefox 57 will monetize it's remaining users. Mozilla knows there are no good alternatives, Opera, Chrome, Microsoft, Apple, Vivaldi, Pale Moon all track users data in some way so they can get user data for money.
Not enough people were choosing to compromise their privacy, so we're going to do it for them.
Yet another reason to switch to Pale Moon if you haven't already done so.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Jumped to Waterfox several years ago. At the time it was the only 64 bit version of FF code but it has matured and while it still follows FF core it didn't disable plug-ins and it strips out tracking.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Huh? Telemetry is currently opt-in, not opt-out, except for beta builds. Your post doesn't make sense, because that is how Firefox is currently configured.
I don't have a problem with betas collecting telemetry on an opt-out basis. I think it's more reasonable to expect that a developer would want to collect more data from versions that are likely to include new features and are explicitly built for testing purposes.
It is amazing that we have developed as a civilization in the days before all this privacy-busting data collection.
...Engineers also plan to embed Google's RAPPAR project [1, 2] for anonymous data collection....
Using the word "google" with the phrase "anonymous data collection" may invoke laughter. And disbelief.
Huh? Telemetry is currently opt-in, not opt-out, except for beta builds. Your post doesn't make sense, because that is how Firefox is currently configured.
Because, this is Slashdot, so whatever Mozilla (and many other companies) do is automatically wrong, even when they do the thing we bitched about them not doing previously
Yes I'm eagerly awaiting SlashFox because everyone here seems to know how to make the perfect browser.
The feature list doesn't need to be long, nor complicated.
Render HTML5 and CSS properly, bookmark support, built in ad blocker and sandboxed from the OS. Everything else is unnecessary and simply bloatware.
My first response: They're about to kill its best, remaining feature in the minds of many, and now they say, "Let me spy on you."
But I ultimately get what they're trying to do. After all this online complaining, they may finally be having to accept that they really need to know more about how people use their product. Considering how many people here have complained about how the Mozilla devs "don't know what we really want!! Why are they doing X??", this should be something they should consider doing.
Sounds like they're damned if they do, damned if they don't. Maybe us complainers should look in the mirror and realize we may be one of the toughest crowd of browser users in the world to please. "No, you can't collect my data!.... Wait - Why are you removing X? I USE THAT FEATURE! Don't you know that about your users?
Maybe that's why Google Chrome has outstripped Firefox over the last several years when it comes to user base size. They KNOW what most people want, even if we don't like to admit to everything we want?
I'm a loyal Firefox user - and I'll probably still opt-out while I grumble about losing most of my add-ons. But I won't honestly be able to say that Firefox's eventual demise will be on the Mozilla Foundation alone.
The constant update cycle, trying to become Chrome-but-worse, disabling treasured extensions and plugins, all of these tactics and more have cratered Firefox's market share, but some people still apparently have it installed on their system.
Clearly, these few remaining miscreants must be driven away as fast as possible. Default collection of private data should do the trick!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
The knee-jerk reaction is that all telemetry is a privacy nightmare.
As a thought experiment, what kind of telemetry might be acceptable?
For example, suppose it were 2 integers collected weekly:
* number of HTTPS sites visited
* number of HTTP sites visited
Unavoidably, there would be metadata: IP address and date/time of data collection. So as well as the intended analytics ("what proportion of the sites users are visiting are HTTPS sites?") it would be possible to build a per-IP profile of number of sites visited over time.
Is this level of telemetry unacceptable?
If it is acceptable, then we've established that it is not telemetry per se that is bad but rather the data being collected.
Ongoing telemetry would require trust ("when I consented you were collecting two integers, but now you're collecting all sorts of other things") unless totally transparent, but perhaps even with total transparency the burden of verification that then falls on the user is too onerous.
I wonder if there could be a role for someone like the EFF to be the guardian of telemetry info, i.e. Firefox sends telemetry data to the EFF and they then decide whether it's ok or not, or anonymize it (e.g. strip out IP addresses in the above example), before sending it on to Mozilla. Of course, they'd want to be paid for this service, and since users reject the notion of paying for a browser the obvious payer would be Mozilla, but that creates moral hazard. Given that it'd be a public good, the government could run and/or fund it, but I suspect there's a large overlap between the set of people who have a problem with telemetry and the set of people who distrust their government.
Firefox is used to visit WEBPAGES.
This is likely to run into a definition dispute, sometimes called "no true Scotsman", "misunderstood word", or "Layne's Law". To avoid this, we need to clarify something first:
"WEBPAGES" means "HTML documents", which are parsed into a DOM that is styled with CSS and edited in response to user actions with JavaScript. Is this what you meant? Or do you specifically refer to static HTML documents, whose only forms of user interaction are navigation, form submission, and checkbox-hack hiding and showing?
Anybody who claims that Firefox protects their privacy probably hasn't actually looked at Firefox's privacy policy.
Below are some excerpts from the Firefox privacy policy that is dated July 31, 2017.
Be sure to notice the type of information being collected and possibly even transmitted to third parties (including Google, some "Leanplum" company, a "mobile analytics vendor", and "certain developers"). We see terms like:
Here are the excerpts:
I'm assuming that your preference to omit "Everything else" implies omitting JavaScript. If so, then what do you prefer to replace JavaScript?
Web applications ought to run server-side Good luck having to click-wait-click-wait-click on server-side image map, with a full page reload each time, in order to use any web application with substantial interaction. Web applications that require JavaScript ought to be rewritten as native applications Not only does a native application tend to have even less "sandbox[ing] from the OS" than a web application, but it also works on only one operating system family. Even if using a multi-platform library such as Qt, the developer still needs to acquire an instance of each target platform on which to test each executable. Expect to see a lot more notices to the effect "Sorry, this application is not available for [your OS]. If you want to see this application on [your OS], please contribute to our crowdfunding campaign."Indeed. I always cringe when telemetry is represented as "critical" in some way.
Even setting aside the politics of privacy, it's far from clear to me that telemetry has been, on the whole, all that much of a benefit in terms of software quality. Generally speaking, software quality has been declining for years, and I often see objectively bad decisions being made on the basis of telemetry.
Good use for telemetry: getting a better understanding of how your software is malfunctioning. Bad use for telemetry: using it to make or justify "user experience" decisions.
When settings like telemetry are on a preferences page, average users won't navigate to the page.
Yeah, I've noticed this myself. It baffles me a bit, because when I use a program for the firs time, the very first thing I do is examine everything on the options pages.
But then, the first thing I do when I get a new appliance or device is read the instructions (often before completely unpacking it), so I'm admittedly a freak.
If the 'opt out clause' just means I have to go into settings and uncheck some boxes, and Mozilla otherwise isn't going to pull any Microsoft-level bullshit like quietly countermanding me again when I'm not looking, then that's fine.
If, on the other hand, they do something nasty, like remove the checkboxes entirely, and make you jump through a bunch of hoops to 'opt out', and then you have no way of independently verifying your 'opt out' choice has been taken seriously, then I say "screw you, you bastards, you have become everything you hate".
I don't know how to make the perfect browser. But the browser I want is one that I am in control of my PC. Not some website, not the adds, not the virus or other badware.
Firefox without addons does better than others(with things hidden in about:config). And with 2-5 choice addons it's the best in having users in control. I don't give my parents and friends things like ublock/umatrix/noscript, but insted give them Disconnect(or ublock using limited lists).
People don't need to know hot to make what they want, (Although other forks like The Palemoon and Waterfox exist). They do know Mozilla is not only ignoring but moving away from what they want.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
.
Privacy-busting data collection is not going to fix that problem, as the data will more than likely be interpreted by the developers to confirm their misdirected vision.
Instead of data collection (something that is done because it is easy, not necessarily the proper solution), the Firefox developers need to take a step back and look at their vision for Firefox. That is the conversation that needs to take place with the Firefox users.
Offhand, I'd say that priority #1 is that the Firefox users don't want Firefox to continue on the goal of turning into a Chrome clone. With the addition of data collection, that goal is almost met.
I could go on, but I doubt if anyone is reading, they're probably drooling over all the data they will be collecting soon.