No, I think I would prefer if Mozilla failed and died. Then they would no longer be fulfilling their purpose, which is to protect Google from antitrust suits. I would prefer that Google did not have that protection.
1 Like
Mozilla has not reviewed any of their own products or services for *Privacy Not Included, likely due to conflict of interest.
There is no need to give their reviews any credibility even if they do end up reviewing themselves, as multiple Firefox forks exist that are more focused on freedom/security/privacy/anonymity:
Related:
3 Likes
Actually it does! I was looking at google-related stuff but skipped mozilla entirely. Anyhow, Franky posted a fine link that explains it all.
1 Like
Here is another perspective from AdGuard’s blog:
Relevant quote:
2 Likes
Firefox 128 was just released, and it has a new “privacy” setting, conveniently opted in for you by default:
Firefox-ESR will be updated in the near future, too.
Not as well as we can.
6 Likes
Could you provide the “Learn more” link without the Urchin Tracking Module URL parameters?
Damn! They did it. Wrong way! Giving up on ethics. They are lost!
Let’s hope it doesn’t trickle down to Tor browser…
3 Likes
I’m sure they will remove it.
2 Likes
I read the entire page, and this quote stuck out the most:
That last sentence makes it clear whom Mozilla truly caters to with this PPA implementation.
3 Likes
And these quotes:
Attribution is how advertisers learn whether their advertising works. Attribution measures how many people saw an ad on a website and then later visited the advertiser’s website to do something the advertiser cared about. For example, maybe someone sees an ad for a sale on a product, then buys that product. Attribution counts how many people do that.
The thing is, ads largely don’t exist on my devices. So there’s nothing for advertisers to learn from my browsers.
Websites that show you ads can ask Firefox to remember these ads. When this happens, Firefox stores an “impression” which contains a little bit of information about the ad, including a destination website.
Firefox creates a report based on what the website asks, but does not give the result to the website.
Your results are combined with many similar reports by the aggregation service. The destination website periodically receives a summary of the reports.
I have to ask myself:
- How is this different from Google’s so-called Privacy Sandbox?
- Is this just Google’s Privacy Sandbox in disguise?
3 Likes
I don’t see anything saying what will prevent the “aggregation service” from exploiting the data goldmine falling into its lap.
1 Like
Apparently (I assume), this ISRG project is the particular technology used: About Divvi Up - Divvi Up
About ISRG: About Internet Security Research Group - Internet Security Research Group
ISRG Sponsors and Donors: Sponsors and Donors - Internet Security Research Group
2 Likes
What really bothers me is how the webpage contradicts with the Firefox Data Collection and Use in about:preferences#privacy:
I plan on dealing with this with my own Firefox Profile, user.js, and policies.json sometime in the near future.
2 Likes
I think amarok was ahead of this but… since Firefox 128.0 you have a new setup and to uncheck some Setting called: Website Advertising Preferences
Apply websites to perform privacy-preserving ad measurement
This helps sites understand how ads perform without collecting data about your.
and on Firefox 128.0 its enabled by default.
Edit: I am 4 days behind. ;D Sorry i should follow the thread to the end and not only the last three posts. And visit this forum more often. Thank you Amarok and FranklyFlawless!
1 Like
+1 for simply using LibreWolf on GNU+Linux and Mull on GrapheneOS. They’re based on FF but with a multitude of privacy and security enhancements.
P.S. remember not to use the browser DNS settings when using a VPN as the latter has it’s own. The good ones like AirVPN allow you to enable various block lists on your account page on their site. MozillaVPN (which I also pay for) allows three options blocking.
Oh. I totally forgot to say that it might be a good thing they buy stuff like this because then technically they can still do stuff in-house. I want them to be more like Brave and go the extra ten miles.
2 Likes
Now, if only LibreWolf would release an ARM version…
+1 for AirVPN and their DNS filtering options.
2 Likes
Here’s something related to this thread from the legal proceedings of Google monopoly: Google's Monopoly Lawsuit Could Threaten Mozilla Firefox's Existence: Here's Why
Since G has paid hundreds of millions to have its global position (probably 95-85% of Mozilla’s and Firefox development funding) and that practice now questioned, it may be a harsh reality check on the budged side, and pretty soon after, on any app and app ecosystem related to Mozilla (forks included).
I’m wishing for G to crumble (dreaming) but also wondering how bad this can go for open and free software…
3 Likes
mobile-config-firefox has this issue covered in their latest commit for policies.json:
I currently have a private Codeberg repository for a Firefox profile, so my plan is to make it public once I have enumerated enough user.js configuration values for feature-parity against @arkenfox, @yokoffing, and @pyllyukko, alongside deploying at least a DNS-over-HTTPS(/2) server.
2 Likes