Mozilla Slipped a 'Mr. Robot'-Promo Plugin Into Firefox and Users Are Pissed (gizmodo.com)

MarcAuslander shares a report from Gizmodo: Mozilla sneaked a browser plugin that promotes Mr. Robot into Firefox -- and managed to piss off a bunch of its privacy-conscious users in the process. The extension, called Looking Glass, is intended to promote an augmented reality game to "further your immersion into the Mr. Robot universe," according to Mozilla. It was automatically added to Firefox users' browsers this week with no explanation except the cryptic message, "MY REALITY IS JUST DIFFERENT THAN YOURS," prompting users to worry on Reddit that they'd been hit with spyware. Without an explanation included with the extension, users were left digging around in the code for Looking Glass to find answers. Looking Glass was updated for some users today with a description that explains the connection to Mr. Robot and lets users know that the extension won't activate without explicit opt-in.

Mozilla justified its decision to include the extension because Mr. Robot promotes user privacy. "The Mr. Robot series centers around the theme of online privacy and security," the company said in an explanation of the mysterious extension. "One of the 10 guiding principles of Mozilla's mission is that individuals' security and privacy on the internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional. The more people know about what information they are sharing online, the more they can protect their privacy."

Comments

When browsers jump the shark

[Lisandro]

Seriously, WTF?!

Re:When browsers jump the shark

[Lisandro]

"The Mr. Robot series centers around the theme of online privacy and security. One of the 10 guiding principles of Mozilla’s mission is that individuals’ security and privacy on the internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional."

So yeah, let surreptitiously install plugins on everyone's browsers.

Re:When browsers jump the shark

[grasshoppa]

This is what happens when you let Gilligan drive.

Re:When browsers jump the shark

[KiloByte]

Don't forget disabling all existing privacy extensions. Oh, and mails you get from Mozilla are pure gold: "Keep trackers off your trail" blah blah "evade tracking technology" blah blah "https://click.e.mozilla.org/?qs=e7bb0dcf14b1013fca3820..."

Re: When browsers jump the shark

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla has no business installing add-ons without user consent, especially when it's done quietly in the background. This is the type of behavior that one would expect from malware, and it may well be illegal. I am seriously considering filing a lawsuit against the Mozilla Foundation under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Re:When browsers jump the shark

[Anonymous Coward]

Privacy and security doesn't just mean protection from malicious third-party entities; it also includes not being screwed around with by the software you thought you could trust. This is just Mozilla trying to justify being defective by design, which really should not come as a surprise.

Re:When browsers jump the shark

[rudy_wayne]

Mozilla justified its decision to include the extension because Mr. Robot promotes user privacy.

Bullshit. They did it because they got paid by the producers of that TV show to do it. This is what happens when a company is totally dependent on advertising for their revenue.

Re: When browsers jump the shark

[retchdog]

good luck with that. remember to type it up; i hear the courts don't appreciate crayon.

Re: When browsers jump the shark

[retchdog]

well, yeah, of course they can be. i'm just wondering what you're going to show them as damages.

Re: When browsers jump the shark

[omnichad]

So if it was just a browser update with the same code it's fine, but as an add-on it's illegal. Sure...

Look, the outcry is real and fair. But let's not call it illegal, because it's their software and you clicked to agree to updates.

Re: When browsers jump the shark

[Anonymous Coward]

But don't forget they quietly reverted to not requiring pulseaudio.

Re: When browsers jump the shark

[Anonymous Coward]

That, unfortunately, is why I'm uncertain about suing them. They should be punished for this stunt, but that part of the statute does specifically mention damage caused by programs loaded without user consent. Courts have stretched the interstate commerce portion of the CFAA to include virtually any computer connected to the internet. What I need to find out is whether the part about damages has similarly been stretched. It's entirely possible, especially given that LinkedIn seems to think that TOS violations also constitute damages.

Without serious backlash like this, it's all too common to get some backtracking for a little while, then again pushing the limits of what users will tolerate. It's like boiling a frog in hot water. If the frog reacts, back off the heat a little bit, then slowly turn it up again. If there isn't some serious backlash that affects the Mozilla Foundation beyond negative press, they will probably do something like this again.

Re:When browsers jump the shark

[Anonymous Coward]

> "The Mr. Robot series centers around the themes of violating online privacy, vigilantism and destroying others security. One of the 10 guiding hubris' of Mozillaâ(TM)s mission is that an individualsâ(TM) security and privacy on the internet are fundamentally at our whim and must be treated as optional."

You are welcome :)

Re: When browsers jump the shark

[Kjella]

Look, the outcry is real and fair. But let's not call it illegal, because it's their software and you clicked to agree to updates.

Legally they're in the clear, but I find that permission is given almost under duress. Like you can either agree to this or hackers can root your computer, steal your identity and blackmail you through cryptolockers. It's like refusing safety recalls to your car only worse because they're remotely exploitable, like if someone honks three times your brakes stop working. What sane, responsible person wants to run an Internet-facing piece of software with no support or security patches?

So I understand they need my permission for that but when I say "you do what you gotta do" it doesn't mean I'm happy when they replace my cup holder because the interior decorator doesn't fancy it anymore. Sadly more and more software is turning to the Darth Vaderesque style of updates, if you want to keep using it there's a new agreement, a new look and it works differently. Pray that I don't alter it further. You can wrap it in all the "constantly enhancing the user experience" marketing bullshit you want, but really I want my security-only updates back.

Re:When browsers jump the shark

[rtb61]

Mozilla also have a pretty bad reputation for forcing stuff on people, a real clique arrogance. Your tabs, screw you, we want they where we want they, bugger your choice. Same as for appearance, like the old look, meh, we don't, new millennium style, don't like use IE suckers. They can be pretty bloody rude and like a lot of these types or orgs, a particular crowd worms they way in and it is all about serving their ego and fuck everyone else. Mozzilla certainly ain't what it used to be and it stinks of Google actively working to fuck up firefox in order to drive users to super invasive chrome, the chrome plated versions of Windows anal probe 10. The stink of the big shit at 'Alphabet' is string in this action, designed to damage Mozzilla's reputation and win a monopoly for chrome.

Re: When browsers jump the shark

[ShanghaiBill]

I believe Mozilla probably can be sued under the CFAA.

Anyone can be sued for anything. But you aren't going to do it. If you were someone actually capable of preparing and filing a lawsuit, you wouldn't be anonymously blabbing about it on Slashdot.

Litigating a case like this could easily cost $100k. Justice isn't cheap. I doubt if you, personally, could show more than $1 in damages.

Re: When browsers jump the shark

[mschwanke97402]

This is the type of behavior that one would expect from malware.

Actually, this is the type of behavior I’ve come to expect from Microsoft in Windows 10. Also lots of other software products. You clearly didn’t read the EULA, did you? We live in the age of no shame.

Re: When browsers jump the shark

[mikael]

It seems to be a trend. I installed Chrome on a Linux partition and almost immediately, Yahoo tried to install their plugin into that browser.

Not forgetting Canonical's spyware which sent your local search queries for command options to their servers. It's anonymized they claim - well it isn't if your ISP decides to do a man-in-the-middle attack and deep packet inspection with your data.

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/201...

Re:When browsers jump the shark

[Anonymous Coward]

To move tabs, I created the directory c:\Users\(username)\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\(yourprofile).default\chrome and then put a file named userChrome.css in it with this content. Note the 1,2,3 order you can modify to change where tabs, etc. are at the top of Firefox 57. The order below is for navigation bar, bookmarks, then tabs:
/* Tab bar below navigation & bookmarks toolbars */

#nav-bar{
  -moz-box-ordinal-group: 1;
  border-top-width: 0;
}

#PersonalToolbar {
  -moz-box-ordinal-group: 2;
}

#TabsToolbar {
  -moz-box-ordinal-group: 3;
}

#main-windows[windowtype="navigator:browser"] {
background-color: transparent;
}

/* 2/1/3 - bookmarks, controls, tabs */

/* 1/2/3 - controls, bookmarks, tabs */

Re:When browsers jump the shark

[jellomizer]

I want a browser to be fast, secure and protect my privacy. I don’t want it to tell me what I should watch or think.
I may want Firefox for reasons different then the organization goals. I don’t appreciate getting stuff pushed on me.

Re: When browsers jump the shark

[jellomizer]

It isn’t about if they can, but if they should.
I want to be able to know what is on my system and what sites I am connecting to. Having a plug-in vs a software update is a bit different. Because the software update fixes the software while a plugin esptthe one from this article is trying to push some idea.

Re:When browsers jump the shark

[Stan92057]

Well its not installed on mine so im guessing they installed it on a small portion of FF installs. That,s no excuse, its a complete invasion of privacy and user trust. I bet they got plenty of adverting money though.

Re: When browsers jump the shark

[Rakarra]

Oh, don't worry, we won't be forgetting the fact they compounded their guilt by figuratively trying to sweep the mistake under the rug.

So fixing a mistake sucks too? Were they supposed to crawl back begging for forgiveness because they made an assumption that turned out not to be true in a few minor edge cases?

Re:When browsers jump the shark

[Aighearach]

In Soviet Mozilla, shark jumps you!

Re:When browsers jump the shark

[KiloByte]

They didn't disable all of the existing privacy extensions.

All that I'm using; I find no replacements that are at feature parity. The API to reimplement them for webext aren't there.

Re:When browsers jump the shark

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Which ones would that be? Ublock Origin? Privacy Badger? Decentraleyes? Link Cleaner? HTTPS Everywhere? Smart Referer? NoScript? UMatric? They're all there.

Re:When browsers jump the shark

[JohnFen]

Seems like it would be a lot easier to use a more reasonable browser instead.

Re: When browsers jump the shark

[JohnFen]

It's anonymized they claim

Don't forget that any time someone claims data collected is "anonymized" they are implying something that is not true: that the data collected can't be tied to you.

Re: When browsers jump the shark

[JohnFen]

This is the type of behavior that one would expect from malware.

Actually, this is the type of behavior I’ve come to expect from Microsoft in Windows 10.

Same thing.

Re:When browsers jump the shark

[TheReal_sabret00the]

I believe you're mistaken, UserChrome.css changes aren't reset with updates.

Re: When browsers jump the shark

[Narcocide]

I think you know you didn't deserve 2 karma for this drivel. That's not what I said and you very well know it. "Fixing a few mistakes" is a gross mischaracterization of what happened here.

Re: When browsers jump the shark

[Rakarra]

It's 2017, I wouldn't blame any application-maker, certainly not a GUI web browser, for assuming that everyone who uses sound on Linux is using Pulseaudio. It might not even have been a conscious decision to put in a dependency, any more than it's a conscious decision to use an NSS library. That's how standard it is. Yeah, there were a few die-hard holdouts who ended up getting shafted, but they made a loud enough fuss that it got reverted. Given all the BS that Mozilla has pulled over the last five years, pulseaudio hardly comes close to a jump the shark moment.

One step forward, two back

[grasshoppa]

If they were trying to win back Chrome users, this is a pretty effective way to sabotage their efforts.

I hope they were paid a shitload of cash for this little stun, because it's gonna cost them.

Re: One step forward, two back

[LifesABeach]

Another surprise was hearing on NPR that Mozzilla trashed net neutrality, just wierd

Re:One step forward, two back

[Dutch Gun]

“Firefox worked with the Mr. Robot team to create a custom experience that would surprise and delight fans of the show and our users. It’s especially important to call out that this collaboration does not compromise our principles or values regarding privacy. The experience does not collect or share any data,” Jascha Kaykas-Wolff, chief marketing officer of Mozilla, said in a statement to Gizmodo. “The experience was kept under wraps to be introduced at the conclusion of the season of Mr. Robot. We gave Mr. Robot fans a unique mystery to solve to deepen their connection and engagement with the show and is only available in Firefox.”

So, no apologies for those of us who spotted it, freaked out, and spent a bunch of time trying to figure out WTF this was, and if it was malicious or not.

Seriously, on what planet do you essentially prank all your users with a stunt like this? I was actually pretty happy with Firefox after the Quantum update, as it went better than I was expecting. After that, I immediately turned off telemetry and experiments, because they've now abused my trust with this stunt.

And now comes this statement, doubling down on their incredibly poor judgment. This is the last straw for me. If Mozilla had been the least bit contrite, I might have forgiven this. I've been using Firefox almost since it's inception 15 years ago. That ends today.

Re:One step forward, two back

[retchdog]

"it's gonna cost them."

no it won't. no one is going to remember this in a month, and there are other much more significant variables in the browser "market" (such as it is).

Re:One step forward, two back

[sasparillascott]

Dutch Gun I share your sentiment - this is so disappointing. Actually thought the changeover to Quantum would be bad, but it went well, I would have preferred the old customizable UI and plugins, but could live with it.

Saw Mozilla talking about not getting enough data from users for analysis of the browser, so they were considering having opt out on that (that got barked down quick). But I enabled it on mine just to help - no more.

Then this tone deaf - partner with the content megacorp / E corps to embed a plugin in your Firefox install (not something Mr. Robot would have liked). The fact such a thing happened shows how 4ucked their leadership is - to have approved and run with this.

Disabling all telemetry from now on - all installations. Will use Vivaldi more, was already using it more anyways (very nice customizable browser by the guys who made the original Opera).

Re:One step forward, two back

[grasshoppa]

You don't think so? With one stupid mistake, they turned their browser into adware. People were already flocking away from it, but their latest speed update apparently gave a few pause. Then this stunt...and suddenly, no pause.

They've compromised their integrity, plain and simple. Sure, Chrome snoops on you, but that's hardly surprising to anyone, and when was the last time Chrome served you an add as part of the browser?

Shit, FF just ranged into windows 10 territory, and it took MS employing every dirty trick in the book to even get to the market penetration they have now ( which isn't all that impressive, considering ).

No. Whatever community goodwill Mozilla earned recently is gone, and more besides.

Re:One step forward, two back

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is that there are only 2 unique options any more in the browser market: Firefox (Gecko); and Chrome/Safari (WebKit/Blink). Everything else has died off (even IE/Edge is shrinking). Opera already switched to WebKit.

We need more diverse options in the browser market. As it is, Firefox is more supporting of privacy than Chrome so I'll be sticking with Firefox.

At least people notice this stuff when it's in Firefox. Chrome ships binary blobs all the time to/from your browser doing even more sneaky stuff (and experiments/telemetrics). Not that it's malicious/bad, just not transparent, which, to my understanding, is also the issue here.

Nobody complains when Google ships a silent Android update to Google Play Services that starts storing location history by default. At least Mozilla has a track record of trying to do the right thing where feasible. They still have to fight to remain relevant in the face of Google and Apple, and that means risking bad decisions sometimes. If Mozilla fails, we'll be down to a monopoly of WebKit/Blink based browsers run by Google and Apple.

Re: One step forward, two back

[Anonymous Coward]

Listeners like us keep it in business.

Re:One step forward, two back

[TuringTest]

> After that, I immediately turned off telemetry and experiments, because they've now abused my trust with this stunt.

If you had those turned on, how is this an abuse of your trust? You had given them permission to do anything with your browser. If you don't want anti-privacy measures in Firefox, don't turn them on.

Re:One step forward, two back

[retchdog]

see, to most people, browsers already are basically adware-delivery vehicles. they're going to hear about this, scratch their heads, maybe a few of them vaguely remember that one weird thing that happened on their browser, and then blip! they will never think about it again because they have much, much more important things to worry about.

Re:One step forward, two back

[retchdog]

"Firefox is more supporting of privacy than Chrome so I'll be sticking with Firefox."

yup, that's what i was getting at. one little gaffe versus an entire business model. rofl

Re: One step forward, two back

[sacrilicious]

I don't find NPR any more credible (or less prone to propaganda) than Faux News, or any other tabloid.

Yeah! And Roy Moore rocks! And Trump Rulez!!!! LIbral Media can suck my dickzzzzzz!!!!! Did I get that right, homeboy?

Re:One step forward, two back

[retchdog]

i was thinking more prosaic things like not being fired, feeding your kid, finding health insurance, not being evicted, etc. you know, all those things tech employees generally don't have to worry about.

Re:One step forward, two back

[AvitarX]

It doesn't need to be remembered in a week to have a lasting effect.

Switching browsers has a cost for the end user, it's an annoyance.

If Mozilla looses 5% of it's userbase from this one action, it will take a long time to recover that.

It will cost them 5% of their revenue for the foreseeable future.

Re:One step forward, two back

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

If Mozilla had been the least bit contrite, I might have forgiven this.

Really, this.
I get that the concept would've seemed like a great idea, and there may have been a way to make this work, but not by installing anything uninvited. I don't get why they didn't do something on their "new tab" page - yeah some people will have customised that so they wouldn't see whatever, but at least that way it's not actively pushing unexpected code.

Not in a malicious way, but I do think someone who made this decision at Moz needs to at the very least, take a little break from their position because this really was a terrible decision.

Re: One step forward, two back

[Rakarra]

Another surprise was hearing that NPR is still in business.

It's a pretty good business. If you're going to listen to radio, it's hard to get better. Except when they air some crazy stuff after midnight, and not whenever Prairie Home Companion is on.

Re:One step forward, two back

[Rakarra]

no it won't. no one is going to remember this in a month,

Nerds can have a long memory. With every article that mentions Sony, there will invariably be a few 5-modded comments saying "remember when Sony included that root-kit on audio CDs? Never again, Sony!"

Of course, non-nerds never heard about that, nor will they hear about the Mr. Robot thing.

Re: One step forward, two back

[Aighearach]

You've got some derp on your chin... no, stuck your neckbeard... no, there's more...

Re:One step forward, two back

[Dutch Gun]

Well, I see you'd fit right in at Mozilla.

Re:One step forward, two back

[doom]

I think the post-57 "Quantum" firefox does a little better than that. It doesn't freeze up completely, it tends to completely crash-- weirdly enough, this is actually much preferable behavior, it saves me the trouble of trying to run "xkill" when firefox is eating most of the system resources.

It's a good thing I like to complain or I would've given up on Firefox a long time ago.

Re:One step forward, two back

[doom]

see, to most people, browsers already are basically adware-delivery vehicles.

Look, most people have already given up on Firefox, at this point the firefox user base is the few, the proud, the masochistic.

Have you ever asked a firefox shill why you should use firefox when it's just become a fork of chrome? They invariably start going on about getting away from google's evil surveillance ad-supported clutches.

Either we're supposed to care about this, or not. Is mozilla.org a lesser evil, or just a different evil?

Re:One step forward, two back

[TuringTest]

Why because I'd take your statement of "I allow Mozilla to run experiments in my browser"at face value? If you make a public statement like that, have the courage to stand by it, and don't go whining that people followed up on your offer.

Re:One step forward, two back

[JohnFen]

no one is going to remember this in a month

I probably won't. Here's how it works with me -- once a company has violated my trust enough, I just remember not to use their products or services anymore. I don't bother remembering why (because it doesn't matter at that point). I just won't be going back to them.

its fine, just disclose one thing

[nimbius]

Did you get paid to ship this? If so, your privacy explanation is the purest bullshit since ajit pai claimed net neutrality repeal helped promote internet freedom.

Re:its fine, just disclose one thing

[Desler]

Of course they did.

Re: its fine, just disclose one thing

[Lisandro]

You bet they did. Hell, they're even remarking how the plugin is a "Firefox exclusive" right in the explanation press release.

Re: its fine, just disclose one thing

[arth1]

Hell, they're even remarking how the plugin is a "Firefox exclusive" right in the explanation press release.

Another way of saying nobody else were that stupid?

Re:its fine, just disclose one thing

[Waffle Iron]

Oh good lord, get over the net neutrality bullshit already. You lost. It's done. Nothing bad will happen.

If nothing bad will happen, then why were the big telecom companies and their government puppets so hell-bent on shoving this through? Are you really so naive as to think that they were antsy to make this change for any other reason than to extract more fees from their locked-in customers, as well as inflict brand new fees on content creators?

Re:its fine, just disclose one thing

[Rakarra]

Oh good lord, get over the net neutrality bullshit already. You lost. It's done. Nothing bad will happen. Stop drinking the kool aid already.

"Nothing bad will happen?" Were you asleep for the decade before Title II's implementation? Forgot about about Comcast's war with Netflix, resulting in higher prices for Netflix when they had to pay extortion money?

I guess everything is ok when it's only "opportunity cost" that is lost due to high prices? In which case Conservatives can shut the hell up whining about "job killing regulations," since they're totally fine with a legal monopoly like Comcast skimming off everyone else's revenue streams.

Does the plugin actually *do* anything?

[gman003]

So I disabled the addon as soon as I read the article, and I am legit mad that Mozilla would do this, but... what does the addon actually do? I didn't notice any difference before disabling it, and I've dug through all the links and nobody seems to be saying what it does.

Even if it was just a blank addon, no effect other than putting what's essentially an ad into my addon list (pun unintended), that would be bad, but it would be less bad than if it actually disrupted the browser in some way.

Mozilla's half-assed apology seems to indicate the addon only starts doing things once you "opt-in", with no mention of how or where one would do that. Which is probably the least evil way you could do this, I'll admit.

Re:Does the plugin actually *do* anything?

[bigdavex]

The plugin downloads U2 albums.

Re:Does the plugin actually *do* anything?

[unrtst]

According to https://github.com/mozilla/add..., it does:

* sends header "X-1057" to sites
* if the page contains certain strings, it flips those strings upside down for 2-6 seconds and then reverts to normal (ex. "privacy" and "control"). It'll also put an on hover box on them with a link.

Dunno if that's really the right plugin, test plan, or full list of what it does, but it was linked from the parents link, which was waaaay more to read than the above two bullet points. If someone sees the above and knows them to be wrong, please reply and correct me.

Re:Does the plugin actually *do* anything?

[thetaco82]

This is the best comment in the history of the internet.

Re:Does the plugin actually *do* anything?

[Mal-2]

The plugin downloads U2 albums.

With or without you.

Re:Does the plugin actually *do* anything?

[Rakarra]

I'll take Rick Astley over Bono any day.

Re:Does the plugin actually *do* anything?

[doom]

In addition to everything else, mozilla.org has some of the absolute stupidest public relations strategy imaginable... could it be the they're being run by plants intended to destroy the place?

Never seen it...

[Kernel Krumpit]

Thanks for all the Headzup but I've never seen it in my Add-ons. And it's still not there in v. 57.0.2 64-Bit. Is this maybe just a US thing?

Re:Never seen it...

[Dutch Gun]

If you hadn't enabled telemetry and studies, you wouldn't see it. Also, given that it's some sort of marketing tie-in to Mr. Robot, it might very well be US only.

Re:Never seen it...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not US-only.

Re:Never seen it...

[K10W]

It's not US-only.

I wondered that because it is weird I didn't get it in either blue nor standard orange versions I use. FWIW I am a fan of the show, in a big way to the point I've often been one of the first to decypher and share the more difficult easter eggs on the two main reddit groups and the like which I couldn't be arsed with for most shows. Despite that I'd still have been pissed if this auto installed on me. The eastereggs are quality as is attention to detail, wont go into them for skae of spoilers but never seen another show have such niche and high quality eastereggs like that.

That's a strike for me...

[cmeans]

I noticed the plugin a day or two ago and couldn't remember installing it (I don't watch Mr. Robot though wifey does), but assumed I must have installed it and simply forgot.
Definitely not happy that Mozilla installed it without my express permission. Nothing from me in their stocking this year.

What Config Key Do I Disable/Delete?

[ewhac]

So if Mozilla can remotely jam new extensions in to my browser without so much as a dialog, that means malicious actors with even fewer scruples will be able to do it in about a week. Short of firewalling all of mozilla.org, how do I turn this shit off?

(I wonder if this has anything to do with the weird XSS blocking dialog NoScript threw three times earlier today. It was blocking an XSS attempt between two domains, neither of which was open in any browser tab at the time.)

Re:What Config Key Do I Disable/Delete?

[ELCouz]

Simple.... https://www.google.com/chrome/

Never ever trust again a browser that can pull stunts like this.

Re:What Config Key Do I Disable/Delete?

[Dutch Gun]

Presumably only Mozilla has access to this sort of system. But then again, that's just an assumption of mine.

You can turn this off in the Privacy section: "Allow Firefox to send technical and interaction data to Mozilla", and under that "Allow Firefox to install and run studies".

It's the latter one that allows those experimental add-ons to be added and run. I had those both enabled, because I thought that Mozilla would be responsible in how it used them. Obviously, I was mistaken. So, at the very least disable the latter if you don't want more mysterious add-ons showing up. As soon as you uncheck that box, the add-on disappears.

Re:What Config Key Do I Disable/Delete?

[suss]

Chrome has this ability too and has abused it in the past.
And it phones home all the time.

Re:What Config Key Do I Disable/Delete?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a Firefox Study. Disable the studies from the privacy settings. Remove all domains from the add-on installation exception list. That's a start.

Re:What Config Key Do I Disable/Delete?

[Anonymous Coward]

(Sorry, can't logon from AC on this machine)

I really don't mind phoning home anymore since literally everything does it. At least Chrome provides useful reasons for being online like url auto completion and integration with my google cloud stuff like remembering my bookmarks.

What I REALLY FIND OFFENSIVE is when products (whoever they are, Google, Mozilla, Apple, whatever) install things without telling me, ESPECIALLY if they're written by a third party. I may trust Google, or Mozilla, but that doesn't mean I magically trust whatever third party they whored themselves out to.

It may be an illusion that we control our PCs anymore. But any actor that intentionally violates that illusion (like Apple downloading a free U2 album to your phone) feels like a violation. It's like someone walked into your home while you were asleep and baked you a cake. "Hey, you've got a free cake! Why aren't you happy?" ... "Because you came in without asking while I was asleep!" and then these companies are asking us, "Don't you trust me?"

Re:What Config Key Do I Disable/Delete?

[WaffleMonster]

So if Mozilla can remotely jam new extensions in to my browser without so much as a dialog, that means malicious actors with even fewer scruples will be able to do it in about a week. Short of firewalling all of mozilla.org, how do I turn this shit off?
(I wonder if this has anything to do with the weird XSS blocking dialog NoScript threw three times earlier today. It was blocking an XSS attempt between two domains, neither of which was open in any browser tab at the time.)

Look around in about:config

Searching for 'http' and '.enabled' ... is usually a good starting place.

Personally I modified most of the URLs to point to a local web server just out of curiosity so I can get a better idea what Mozilla is up to but they can just as easily be sabotaged... http://0.0.0.0/...

As for the XSS browsers have retarded heuristic filters which in my view are dangerous and should be disabled. The filters are naÃve it is basically impossible because the browser lacks necessary context to make a reasoned informed decision.

They work mostly by looking for "reflections" which can easily triggered false positives by random coincidences. They are also easily bypassed by attackers. They don't do jack against stored XSS which is what fucks most people over when using insecure sites and there is a long history of vulnerabilities in XSS filters being used as an actual attack vector.

Re:What Config Key Do I Disable/Delete?

[WaffleMonster]

Simple.... https://www.google.com/chrome/

  Never ever trust again a browser that can pull stunts like this.

Chrome is one of the worst browsers imaginable from a privacy perspective.

Re:What Config Key Do I Disable/Delete?

[Dutch Gun]

Nothing of this sort in Privacy Settings whatsoever.

I'm looking at it right now under Options -> Privacy & Security -> Firefox Data Collection and Use.

Re:What Config Key Do I Disable/Delete?

[doom]

It may be an illusion that we control our PCs anymore.

It was always an illusion, but it was one that we used to work very hard to support. Now the pretense is long gone-- the central message is always, and forever "we own you, don't you forget it".

(Me, I use linux software so I can have it my way... then some pinhead at redhat fucks with libgtk, I upgrade my debian distro and my user interface is messed up in some random way that's supposed to be better for a "smart" phone, which I'm not actually using, and have no plans on using.)

Re:What Config Key Do I Disable/Delete?

[Rexdude]

Get rid of Firefox, install Palemoon and import your Firefox profile into it. It comes with the standard desktop UI that was there before Australis, continued full support for XUL extensions and no telemetry or bundled bullshit.
Basically everything that was good about Firefox until version 4. And no, it's not abandoned or obsolete or anything, it gets regular updates and fixes.
And it's had a 64-bit version on Windows for long before Firefox finally offered one.

Auto-update abuse

[duke_cheetah2003]

You know it's crap like this that encourages end-users to find ways to block auto-updates, because of abusive use of it.

Need to reel that BS in, it's not a good idea, auto-updates should be a good thing. Don't be muddying the waters any further, it's getting pretty obnoxious as it is.

Re:"privacy-conscious users"

[sgage]

This, this, a thousand times this.

Nobody cares about privacy, or really even about security, as long as they get their new fresh modern stuff.

The dream of the web died years ago, and the dream of personal computing is dying right now before our very eyes.

It was inevitable. There is nothing that the corporate shitheads can't co-opt, corrupt, and ruin - the genius of Capitalism at work.

Oh well, it was fun there for a while...

I think it's great

[dbarclay10]

I know a lot of people are going to be upset, I think they're wrong to be. A lot of people have been wondering if Mozilla has turned on their users, if a historic FOSS project has been totally corrupted. I think Mozilla is awesome to include advertising like this - I mean think about it, they're getting paid to advertise for alternatives and forks to Firefox. Plus now we all know for damned sure that Mozilla is a sinking ship and we need to hop on the nearest life raft.

Re:The final straw.

[belg4mit]

Try waterfox, drop-in replacement for Firefox 52 or so.

Re:The final straw.

[sgage]

Chrome? Chrome?! Out of the frying pan, into the fire. I will not have anything to do with any Google product whatsoever.

because Mr. Robot promotes user privacy

[NicknameUnavailable]

Bullshit, that should read:

Mozilla justified its decision to include the extension because "the people marketing Mr. Robot paid us."

Re:because Mr. Robot promotes user privacy

[DivineKnight]

Mozilla: "We did it for money!"

Re:because Mr. Robot promotes user privacy

[DivineKnight]

Most of us want IE 6 to die more than we hate what Mozilla has just pulled here.

Re:because Mr. Robot promotes user privacy

[fustakrakich]

Oh no, why would you think I was talking about IE?

Re:because Mr. Robot promotes user privacy

[NicknameUnavailable]

Mozilla: "We did it for money!"

When you put it that way they sound like hookers, just less attractive.

Re:because Mr. Robot promotes user privacy

[fustakrakich]

This one is actually 23. I will grant that the UI on lynx has been just a bit more consistent over the years, but not by much. Firefox is its bastard child with various limbs amputated to make it "lightweight".

Re:Tired of Mozilla fake privacy crap

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet has been neoliberalized, and it's not pretty. It was better before corporations took it over. Capitalism screws everything up bad.

Re:Mr robot

[NicknameUnavailable]

Season 1 was nice, after that it just turned into artsy bullshit. I was expecting another post-apocalyptic storyline, except with an actual start to the plot. I got a season of mildly amusing schizophrenia followed by batshit communist bullshit.

Re:Palemoon

[NicknameUnavailable]

Waterfox is a little better, but Palemoon isn't bad.

Firefox Studies

[zenbi]

The extension was able to be installed if you had the "Firefox Studies" checkbox selected. To prevent Firefox Studies from installing extensions on your behalf:

• Navigate to: "about:preferences#privacy"
• Scroll down to the "Firefox Data Collection and Use" section
• Uncheck the "Allow Firefox to install and run studies" checkbox (and the others, if you wish)

Re:Firefox Studies

[sasparillascott]

Have to add I had that unchecked (no studies) and did not get this.

Funny users we didn't know by "studies" Mozilla management doublespeak actually meant "marketing campaigns". Disable all 3 things they don't deserve to get them.

Re:Firefox Studies

[cdu13a]

I love the fact that that setting is just slightly above the warn you about unwanted software option.

Re:Firefox Studies

[trawg]

This must be a v57 option as it's not in v56.

(I upgraded to v57 and downgraded a few days later because I couldn't live without my extensions. I'll have to try again later if/when the ecosystem has solidified a bit. )

Re:"privacy-conscious users"

[Sperbels]

You can have my insecure porn viewing apparatus when you pry it from my cold dead (left) hand.

Disable Firefox "shield" studies.

[fahrbot-bot]

A little Googling leads me to think the Looking Glass add-on was installed via the Firefox built-in Shield Recipe Client Feature, also described here: Firefox/Shield/Shield Studies, which is documented as:

Shield is a Firefox user testing platform for proposed, new and existing features and ideas.

Shield Studies is a function of the Shield project that prompts a random population of users to help us try out new products, features, and ideas.

I have this disabled via the following pref.js settings:

// Disable Shield Recipe Client
user_pref("app.shield.optoutstudies.enabled", false);
user_pref("extensions.shield-recipe-client.enabled", false);

Re:Disable Firefox "shield" studies.

[TheRealMindChild]

Tools->Options->Privacy & Security->Firefox Data Collection and Use... uncheck all of it

Re:Disable Firefox "shield" studies.

[AHuxley]

Thanks fahrbot-bot. That extensions.shield-recipe-client.enabled was still set to true even after the Allow Firefox to install and run studies was not selected.

Irony, thy name is Mozilla

[fahrbot-bot]

So, Mozilla, a company that claims privacy is important to them and in their web browser product Firefox, silently mass auto-force-installs an add-on into already installed software, using a built-in feature that almost no one knows about (that comes enabled by default), that promotes the television show Mr. Robot, in which just about everyone in that show routinely breaks the law, breaks into other people's computers (installing backdoors, trojans and root kits), and violates people's privacy. Nice going.

This is precisely why I fret about every new FF release wondering what new crap, I mean "feature", I need to disable. For fucks sake Mozilla, just concentrate on making a good *web-browser*. Seriously, what's next - [spoiler] an axe to the head?

i can't say i'm that surprised...

[retchdog]

after seeing mr robot crap at def con 24 (rofl), this isn't that surprising i guess. i wonder how much actual money the showrunners shell out for this.

because Mr. Robot promotes user privacy

[fustakrakich]

OMG! Please! Pull the other one! Show me the money! Let's see the contract that provoked this. I hope it was worth it.

And I have to ask, is there any reason at all to use Firefox when we have a perfectly good 20 year old browser at our fingertips?

Mr. Robot promotes user privacy?

[fahrbot-bot]

Mozilla justified its decision to include the extension because Mr. Robot promotes user privacy. "The Mr. Robot series centers around the theme of online privacy and security," the company said in an explanation of the mysterious extension.

Have they even *watched* the show? I'm not sure the word "promotes" is apt here - unless they mean "promotes violating user privacy". The protagonist Elliot Alderson has violated *everyone's* privacy and broken into everyone's computer, as has just about everyone else who owns a keyboard -- though they all do seem to get really pissed when *their* privacy and systems get violated, hmm ...

Re:"privacy-conscious users"

[omnichad]

Nobody cares about privacy, or really even about security, as long as they get their new fresh modern stuff.

These more or less have to go hand in hand. Things are changing so fast and so broadly that the only way to keep up is to make that trade off. Of course the smart move might be to not keep up.

Re:"privacy-conscious users"

[sgage]

Exactly. It has become a fashion industry. What people will give up in order to be shiny and modern is astonishing. Oh well.

Fake news

[Whiteox]

Fake. No such thing.

Fine, I'll say it

[slashmydots]

Putting Yahoo as the default search setting was worse.

That's right

[OrangeTide]

Just shut up and give us our free browser.

A new add on is needed

[AHuxley]

Time for an add on to block pushed content?

Don't throw out SW freedom in self-righteousness

[jbn-o]

Mozilla certainly didn't handle this as well as they should have but it's important to keep sight of the bigger picture: switching to another comparable browser risks switching to a nonfree browser. I hope (for your own software freedom) you won't make that bad choice in a hasty emotional decision. That would be quite ironic: to give up on a free browser that can be made better because of an immature stunt ostensibly aimed at increasing user privacy.

Real user privacy simply cannot be had with nonfree browsers. No matter how willing and able you are, you aren't allowed to know what the nonfree browsers do, alter them to suit your needs, or help others by sharing your improvements. Don't throw out your own software freedom because of Mozilla's ill-handled stunt.

v57

[ISoldat53]

Is this a v57 only issue? I never upgraded to because v57 doesn't support one of my addons and didn't get this installed. How ironic that the new version installs an addon that nobody wants.

Re:That's it! I demand my money back!

[Duckeenie]

The Greek Trojan horse was free too.

Re: Don't throw out SW freedom in self-righteousne

[Lisandro]

There's always Chromium, you know.

Manjaro saved me

[basecastula]

good thing Firefox has been broken on Manjato for 2 months

Re:"privacy-conscious users"

[Luckyo]

Fun part. In your spiel, you misspelled "communism". This movement to spy on every citizen through backdoors of every kind imaginable started in China as a tool to maintain population control by their Communist Party about two decades ago. This funded a lot of research into knowhow, that was quickly put into use in China.

And once people in power realized just how easy it is to spy on everyone, for profit and/or control, it snowballed very quickly and since most of the ground work was already done, all you needed was to put the tech into essentially everything. But don't put the blame on capitalism for this. This is very much a communist initiative.

Re: Don't throw out SW freedom in self-righteousne

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera 12 was closed source and had better privacy than any browser ever made.

No more

[teranine]

sudo apt-get purge firefox-esr

well here goes my karma....

[iwbcman]

Sorry folks, but Slashdot just revealed it's true colors. The chorus of OMG! WTF! down with Mozilla, witnessed in this thread is, sadly, proof that the Slashdot audience has become those who the hackers of yore were hacking against. Is there not an ounce of rebellious spirit left on this site? Whether you like the show, Mr. Robot, or not, I just can't fathom the reaction here.

For those those who say this is the last straw for Mozilla-good riddance, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Look there are lots of things I could complain about regarding Firefox, but a chance wanderer coming to Slashdot would think this site is full of nothing but chrome shills and misanthropes who actually *hate* Free software. What made this site so interesting in days long ago was the tension between the rebellious spirit of Free Software and those who made their living working for the man or trying to make a living selling proprietary software. Nowadays corporate shills and libtards reign supreme on this site and the very notion that technology can actually be a source of societal change is completely and utterly lost.

Well duh maybe that's why most here don't even get what Mozilla is, what it represents and how much it actually changed the world around us.

But oh my God they rendered my extension useless, oh my God one of my 80 tabs is leaking memory, or Oh my God it takes a full 1.7 seconds to launch on a modern computer.

Oh well I guess I am just a fanboy, forgot to check the mail and get my check for promoting not only Firefox but Mozilla as a an organization, foundation and corporation. Am I the only idiot here who jumped for joy back in January of 1998 when the mozilla source code was made free and downloaded it just so I could see the code?

My guess is that anywhere from %30-50 of all currently existing jobs in software development wouldn't even exist without Free Software, and Mozilla did more to promote and garner mainstream acceptance of Free Software than the GNU movement ever dreamt of. In all likelihood there would be no Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon etc. without the courage and commitment that founded Mozilla. Alas without Richard Stallman and the GNU movement there probably would never have been a Mozilla.

Long live Mozilla

Re:well here goes my karma....

[110010001000]

You are an idiot. Just because they use a Open Source business model doesn't mean they shouldn't be chastised for pushing advertisements in our face. This extension isn't even Open Source. Yes, they are pushing CLOSED SOURCE software to your machine without you knowing about it.

Re:well here goes my karma....

[QuietLagoon]

... Is there not an ounce of rebellious spirit left on this site?...

Yes, there is an ounce of rebellious spirit left on this site. Unfortunately, Mozilla (through their poor management decisions) is mischanneling said rebellious spirit against the Firefox developers, and not in the manner you hope.

Re:well here goes my karma....

[doom]

I can remember when trolls tried to be clever.

Re:Don't throw out SW freedom in self-righteousnes

[thegarbz]

Blah blah non-free blah blah. At least I know where I stand with Google.

With Mozilla I'm never quite sure. I saw an update the other day, well spin the barrel and pull the trigger, what did they screw up today.

Re:"privacy-conscious users"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Things are changing so fast and so broadly that the only way to keep up is to make that trade off.

What an odd thing to write. We used to compensate people who provided new things we liked to have by paying them.

The reason privacy is dying is because invading privacy has become profitable, and that in turn is because it provided a way to monetize people using a service or enjoying some digital content online without them having to do anything or even necessarily realising what was going on.

Google and Facebook, with their culture of spying-for-ads, and Apple, with its app store culture of software-costing-$3-is-expensive, have much to answer for.

Re:"privacy-conscious users"

[110010001000]

Things aren't changing fast. What is the difference between the web now and 10 years ago? Nothing. Just more ads.

Re:Don't throw out SW freedom in self-righteousnes

[pots]

There are forks of Firefox with more sense than this. Plenty of free options available. This is typical for free software, after all - when the maintainer gets too drunk on power, you fork.

How low will Mozilla sink?

[QuietLagoon]

...Mozilla justified its decision...

The decision cannot be justified. Period. Full stop. Are the completely wrong people in charge of, and making decisions at, Mozilla? Do those people care not one iota about what the customers want? OK, that last question was rhetorical because these past few years Mozilla has shown a stunning indifference to what the Firefox users want. Stunning indifference.

I didn't get the extension

[movdqa]

I'm on the Firefox nightly beta channel and it apparently doesn't install this plugin.

Update Version?

[notb666]

I'm on 57.0.2 and haven't got the said extension. Even the main article hasn't mentioned the update version.

Re:Don't throw out SW freedom in self-righteousnes

[sacrilicious]

At least I know where I stand with Google.

For my education (please), where do you stand with Google? I'm looking for an answer in a context larger than a rehash of this (admittedly upsetting) Mr Robot thing.

Re:Don't throw out SW freedom in self-righteousnes

[thegarbz]

Where I stand with Google is they collect a whole lot of information. This information is their critical bread and butter, it's their equivalent to the recipe for coke. They use this information to provide services to advert companies and to provide services to me with the benefit of knowledge that gives their services an edge over others. Their core competence is the strategic management of information.

Where I stand with Google is that they don't pull stupid shit like this. They protect my privacy by only selling aggregated services. The same can't be said for most other companies who's core business is not information management, as such they have no incentive not to sell my data in its raw form.

Google also has a LONG history of managing data, and in that long history they have shown to be quite trustworthy with it. They have from the start been quite consistent in their actions, unlike say Mozilla the bastion of privacy and openness suddenly doing stupid shit like this (and it's not the first time either).

Mozilla is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Google is a wolf in wolf's clothing.

Re:Don't throw out SW freedom in self-righteousnes

[Rakarra]

Blah blah non-free blah blah. At least I know where I stand with Google.

With Mozilla I'm never quite sure.

Right, with Google, your privacy is always getting screwed. With Mozilla, you're sure that sometimes your privacy is going to get screwed over without your knowledge (or with it), but sometimes you'll get these weird periods where they don't screw you over at all. Much preferable to getting fucked all the time with Google!

Re:"privacy-conscious users"

[Rakarra]

What an odd thing to write. We used to compensate people who provided new things we liked to have by paying them.

Yup, the Internet definitely changed that.
The default assumption is that things are "free" and you have to put up with advertising. Advertising gets more invasive the more money that needs to be involved. It's because we decided that we don't need to pay for the newspaper anymore, we just get it for free.

Re:Mozilla: Insufficient and poor management

[doom]

If only there was some criteria for slashdot posts.

Re:No.

[Rakarra]

And the males there would be too excited.

I guess that's one way to defeat those sorts of guys.
When a pervert masturbates at you, acting offended is what they want. Instead, masturbate back! It will freak them out and ruin their fun.

Re:Don't throw out SW freedom in self-righteousnes

[Aighearach]

switching to another comparable browser risks switching to a nonfree browser.

Horse shit. If it is Free Software it will be labeled as such. Details about that are in the license.

Free Software users don't just accidentally stumble and land locked into a proprietary product, that isn't how choice and freedom work.

Screw "experiences." Fix the bugs first.

[imjustabigcat]

I am sick of having "experiences" pushed in my face by marketing drones who think I need to know what's "cool" or "interesting." The "experience" I'm really interested in is a browser that functions properly, doesn't crash, supports standards, and which doesn't eat all of the available memory or CPU. I'm even willing to PAY for something like that. If the management team at the Mozilla Foundation has time and resources to surreptitiously load unwanted extensions hyping some television show on the browser, they sure as hell have the time and resources to fix some of the more egregious and annoying bugs.

I sure hope Firefox isn't about to plummet into "form over function" irrelevancy like Skype recently did ("The most expressive Skype ever!"). Bugger "expressive" or "experience"...just make the damned thing work properly.

Re:Don't throw out SW freedom in self-righteousnes

[Aighearach]

I trust google with my data, but I don't trust their browser to have the configurability I desire, nor can I trust them to let me make my own changes if necessary.

So I trust them a lot more in the browser, than on the browser.

Mozilla may be a wolf in sheep's clothing, and Google may be a wolf in wolf's clothing. I like wolves just fine. But I don't want my computer to act like a wolf. It doesn't even matter which clothing it wears if I already know they're both wolves.

Which is why I'm not going to update Firefox every again; when my version has some security problem causing me to want an update, I'll select a fork. Easy, easy, easy. My computer is like a sheep, and I it's shepherd; it rests in the pastures of my choosing.

Re:That's it! I demand my money back!

[CFD339]

I agree. It's a legitimate beef. The outrage is useful, but I also believe that we as consumers of the product should not expect that it will always be created without our best interest in mind.

Re:That's it! I demand my money back!

[CFD339]

I completely agree. I just can't get all that outraged when I know I'm the product, that someone wants to make money from it. It's good that its been found and the information published. Frankly, their "explanation" (read: excuse) doesn't ring true to me at all.

Public Service Announcement

[varmint jerky]

What a cheap stunt on the part of Mozilla. It's things like this that help keep Firefox from being adopted in corporate settings. Anyway, I look at this as yet another reminder that you shouldn't give anyone any resource or information that isn't absolutely mandatory for your use of the service. Do you think I'm wearing a tinfoil hat or something? No, here's why. Even if the recipient doesn't actively abuse your information, they can't protect it anyway. Whoever steals your data absolutely will misuse it, so in my mind there's very little if any difference. So what should you do?

* turn off all the telemetry, crash reports, and sharing of diagnostic information that you can, everywhere you can (apps, OS, browsers, etc.). If you run Windows 10, good luck

* whenever a field says "optional", don't fill it in. This goes for paper as well as virtual. Never share full SSNs, no matter what the form says.

* opt out of all the data sharing you can do and get off all the lists you can - whether Internet-based, phone call, or even letters. Budget time to periodically do this

* get free email addresses and give those out if you have to register. Give out your crappy VoIP number that you don't need and give that out if you have to. It's better than a fake number because it's actually yours (and some losers out there actually use a phone number like a unique identifier)

There's a lot more that can be done, but this is the absolute minimum and you don't have to be technically savvy to do these things. You may still lose the information that you had no choice in sharing, but at least they can't lose what they never had. Regardless of what you do, privacy is dead and has been for a long time. If you want any chance at that, you're going to have to do things like use Tor/Tails (and keep in mind that there are significant functionality trade offs when you go down that road). Ironically, this starts to get into Mr. Robot territory.

And speaking of irony, yes I do realize that in posting this I violated my own rule. But I guess it's worth taking the hit if anyone is inspired.

Re:"privacy-conscious users"

[MrL0G1C]

If your eye is in your left hand whilst you are viewing porn then you really are doing it wrong.

Re:Don't throw out SW freedom in self-righteousnes

[thegarbz]

Actually it's not getting screwed, because Google are one of the few companies I trust to keep my information entirely to themselves and not wholesale sell it to a third party.

Again: I know where I stand with a company that has been consistent. I don't with a company that seems to come up with new stupid ideas every few months.

As for getting fucked? Yeah not feeling it. The other amazing thing about Google is for all the information they have gathered over the past 20 years they've done very little actual fucking. We don't hear an endless string of cases of data breaches, no leaks of personal information, no Google employees getting caught going through people's records, no people finding software fubars breaking up marriages due to strange suggestions, they don't send maternity product adverts to families of teens who haven't revealed they are pregnant, all in all I'm actually feeling a bit left out of the outrage. Maybe they just forgot to fuck me?

What they did do is provide a whole lot of products and services based on the information they collect that makes my daily life easier. But maybe that's what you're talking about when you say getting fucked? Heck I know my wife enjoys a good fucking, so maybe you were talking about the positive aspects.

Re:"privacy-conscious users"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Ironically, it looks like some of the better newspapers and magazines are now making some of the most successful transitions to a subscription/paywall model online. Several of the organisations that produced original, high quality content in the offline world are now able to do so in the online world, still funded by real money from real readers. No doubt it helps that the target audience for these publications is probably both relatively wealthy and interested enough in good information and analysis to pay for it.

What drives me crazy as a software and web developer is when you get people expecting anything you make, no matter what it does or how much work is necessary to make it happen or how much it costs to produce any original content it includes, to be basically free if it's accessed as a web site or no more than a dollar or two if it's standalone software. In a world of $1 torch apps and low budget, free-to-play games loaded with pay-to-win in-app purchases, consumer expectations for what it takes to produce something original and significant are wildly out of sync with the real world, which means a lot of the time you simply can't do it any more and the cheap junk with indirect revenue models is all that's left.

I'll add this

[JohnFen]

I'll add this to my list of reasons why I'll never use the new versions of Firefox.

Re:Don't throw out SW freedom in self-righteousnes

[JohnFen]

Actually it's not getting screwed, because Google are one of the few companies I trust to keep my information entirely to themselves and not wholesale sell it to a third party.

So because you're personally OK with Google's spying ways, that means everybody should be OK with it?

Re:Reason #234324324 to disable autoupdates.

[JohnFen]

I could not agree with this more.

Re: "privacy-conscious users"

[Luckyo]

Capitalism is an economic system, not a system of governance. Communism on the other hand is both an economic system, and a system of governance by the simple necessity of totalitarian governmental control to achieve the economic "flattening" of population.

As a result, capitalism has no intrinsic interest to spy on people, unlike communism which needs to maintain control over people to maintain the system. The reason why capitalism ended up producing the systems for communist regimes and eventually migrated them to Western governments is in the fact that capitalism attempts to find the most economical way to meet any needs that can be profitable to meet.

That means that once the needs of communist and other totalitarian regimes are met, the know how becomes available to much less totalitarian regimes, including capitalist ones as essentially a surplus.

Re:Don't throw out SW freedom in self-righteousnes

[thegarbz]

So because you're personally OK with Google's spying ways, that means everybody should be OK with it?

No. Please read the thread from the top, it'll save you the embarrassment of posting irrelevant garbage next time.

What were they thinking?

[mnt]

It is obvious to me that such a move (installing a piece of software without asking the user) is a breach of trust.

Why did they do it? Are they THAT stupid? Or was the sum payed to Firefox THAT big?

Re:Don't throw out SW freedom in self-righteousnes

[JohnFen]

I re-read the thread from the top. I don't see how it renders my question irrelevant. Care to explain?

Re:Don't throw out SW freedom in self-righteousnes

[thegarbz]

Let me highlight:

At least I know where *I* stand with Google.

Look English may not be your first language but understanding the difference between personal and collective pronouns is like the first lesson you lean in every language. It may be time for you to go back to basics and understand why someone talking about what they think doesn't automatically apply a requirement to third parties.

That my friend is why your post is irrelevant. At no point did I talk about anyone but myself. At no point did I ask someone else to do anything, ... except when I asked you to try and follow a conversation without applying a faulty generalisation that never existed in the conversation in the first place.

Re:Don't throw out SW freedom in self-righteousnes

[JohnFen]

Thank you. It might have been easier and faster if you just stated your counterargument instead of trying so hard to be insulting that you ended up being obtuse.