- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
STOCKHOLM, Sept 25 (Reuters) - Vienna-based advocacy group NOYB on Wednesday said it has filed a complaint with the Austrian data protection authority against Mozilla accusing the Firefox browser maker of tracking user behaviour on websites without consent.
NOYB (None Of Your Business), the digital rights group founded by privacy activist Max Schrems, said Mozilla has enabled a so-called “privacy preserving attribution” feature that turned the browser into a tracking tool for websites without directly telling its users.
Mozilla had defended the feature, saying it wanted to help websites understand how their ads perform without collecting data about individual people. By offering what it called a non-invasive alternative to cross-site tracking, it hoped to significantly reduce collecting individual information.
You must log in or register to comment.
All the naysayers in these comments read like shills and if they aren’t, they really should read how the tracking in question works. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution?as=u&utm_source=inproduct
While it was kinda lame for Mozilla to add it with it already opted-in the way they did, they were still completely open about how it works from the start with a link right next to the feature in settings (the same link pasted above) and it’s far less invasive than the other mainstream browsers.
It can be turned off too, easily. It requires unchecking a checkbox. No jumping through 10 different menus trying to figure out how to turn it off, like a certain other browser does with its monstrous tracking and data collection machine.
With ublock origin it’s also moot, since ublock origin blocks all the ads anyways.
Call me a fanboy if you want, I wont care. Firefox is still the superior browser in my opinion.
I think a big part of the problem is that they didn’t show anyone a notification or an onboarding dialog or whatever about this feature, when it got introduced.
Firefox is still the superior browser in my opinion.
or the least bad, as I have been thinking about it lately
I think a big part of the problem is that they didn’t show anyone a notification or an onboarding dialog or whatever about this feature, when it got introduced.
Right. Not only didn’t they notify anybody, but they took to Reddit to defend the decision not to notify anybody:
we consider modal consent dialogs to be a user-hostile distraction from better defaults, and do not believe such an experience would have been an improvement here.
Which is strange, because Mozilla has no problem with popups in general.
Yeah, as I said it was pretty lame how they added it in. I will repeat that I think it’s still not as bad as how other mainstream browsers add unwanted features but I’m out of the loop there and could be wrong.
Strange, only once do I recall seeing a pop up from Firefox, which was letting me know another browser was trying to become my default browser which I did not do or want. So in that case it was useful, as it was Edge and I did not want Edge to be my default browser. That was years ago, back when I still used Windows. Not saying it doesn’t happen of course, you have links I could check which I assume show it does, but I have not personally witnessed it happen in a long time.
Librewolf
That’s probably the better way of putting it. As far as mainstream browsers go.
Nah. Turning that feature on by default already set in stone for me their willingness to test the waters. If you don’t think auto-enabling anti-privacy features is a problem I don’t know what to tell you. It may be “small” right now, but just wait and see what else they will try to sneak in.
Use Librewolf and Mull instead.
Use Librewolf and Mull instead.
And keep an eye on the Ladybird browser, eventually FF forks will die should FF go full-tilt enshittification, but hopefully not till Ladybird is fully ready
I use Mull on my phone. Haven’t gotten around to playing with Librewolf but it is on my list of things to do.
I don’t consider the addition to be an anti-privacy feature however. I’d like to see someone change my mind about that.
Any company that is willing to enable options (such as advertising) without users permission/consent is anti privacy. While it may not be a big deal for you now, wait to see what else they try to explain away. You act as if ublock is just automatically installed for users, thus making this not a big deal. what about the thousands if not millions of users on default firefox? The fact that Mozilla did this without letting the user know it is on by default, is inherently anti privacy. Hell I would argue turning it on by default is inherently anti privacy. Especially when they try to explain it away on reddit when they faced backlash. “There has to be a reason our users are upset? Am I the bad guy? No it’s the users who are bad!” It is a reminder that no company is your friend. This is a test to see what they can and cannot get away with. A test to see if the users notice/if enough would really jump ship to create an impact on their product.
I jumped ship as soon as this feature was found. Fuck that.
Librewolf is fantastic, it’s FOSS Firefox. I have had absolutley no issues getting firefox extensions to work with librewolf.
You seem to have misunderstood what i said. You fail to address the actual concept i refer to and the attitude with which you do this is not productive. it’s insulting, assumptive and hostile.
are you sure you read my comment correctly? you spouted off about tangential issues in what appears to me, a sort of wild rage. you make an accusation and assumptions about me and how i act. you trash mozillas reaction to the outcry of their addition. you speculate a conspiracy theory about mozilla only trying to get away with stuff and hypothesize about them being ignorant and clueless.
i get it, you have strong feelings about privacy. you now hate mozilla for thier treachery. this was the final straw that made you jump ship. i’m glad you quickly found a browser that works for you. thanks for the unsolicited endorsement of your personal solution. good to hear that it has absolutely no issues with extensions made for firefox. which librewolf was forked from… so why wouldn’t they? is getting in a one way shouting match meant to convince people to convert to another browser?
my statement was intended as invitation for someone to provide an argument as to how the actual addition to firefox is not privacy respecting, like the actual inner workings of it. not assumptions about its creators or their motives or the method of its introduction or how the nefarious villians behind such great injustice must be burned at the stake. not the far reaching ramifications it might lead to. what is it doing that makes one persons personal privacy specifically affected?
Please explain how I came off as insulting? Nowhere in my statement was it meant to come off as insulting. If you are referring to the quote “am I the bad guy” I was talking about mozilla and trying to use the principle skinner meme in text format. It was a joke. It wasn’t directed at you. My entire point is to not trust companies. There is no good company. Mozilla was doing good things but the fact of the matter is they put in an unnessescary feature and enabled it by default. Giving users control of settings they want right out of the gate is pro privacy, when you start choosing what you think is best for the user. That is anti-privacy.
To you that is “kinda lame” but you then explain it away by saying “at least it isn’t as bad as other browsers that make you jump through hoops!” That is where we fundamentally disagree. Bad is still bad for me, and my line is unmovable. Whereas for you there is a line you are willing to move. You asked me why it was inherently anti-privacy and I explained that any company willing to enable a slimy feature by default like this is on the path to become anti-privacy/already is. what you confuse for hostility was me informing you on my posiition.
This isn’t some conspiracy theory, way to be reductive. Companies always require growth and profit. If you think this is a conspiracy theory I have no idea how we even continue this conversation. Mozilla doesn’t give two shits about you or I. Google started off as a company with the slogan “do no evil” look at how that is going. Do you trust that Google still is doing no evil because they had a slogan? No, you don’t trust Google because they have built up this anti-privacy reputation. That started with a simple search engine.
Mozilla is testing the waters in what they can get away with. I was trying to provide alternatives for people who like Firefox but don’t know where to go. I am actually trying to provide solutions rather than explain away a companies behavior as you seem to be doing (And you called us the shills which is ironic). If you don’t like this and are worried about the implications there are other options.
Jesus Christ and you called me assumptive. Did I say anywhere to burn the creators of the Mozilla CORPORATION at the stake? No. Did I say anywhere that I hate mozilla? No. Did I say anywhere that the creators of the Mozilla Foundation are “nefarious villains” ? No. Did I say anywhere about mozilla being ignorant and clueless? No. They know exactly what they are doing and that is the problem. I think that companies are emotionless entities that seek profit over well being.
Also where was this “wild rage” you talk about. TBH your reply is more insulting than my response. Talk about pot calling the kettle black.
Please tell me why this feature needed to be on by default? The absolute necessary reason this feature had to be turned on for every user. Why the user couldn’t turn it on themselves? Do you think the user is too stupid to know what is best for themselves? If they came up with a pop up for you that says “this feature tracks you, do you want to enable it?” would you turn it on?
“not the far reaching ramifications it might lead to.” Oh I get it, you only care if it is harming you now (which it is). Not what these actions could lead to in the future. You are like a frog in a boiling pot of water. The thing is this shit is gradual. My argument is simply stating that this is the start of something you may not want to be a part of in the future.
In the blogpost you link they specifically say that this feature tracks you but not in the normal cookie way you are used to. Tracking is still tracking and it’s gross. Tracking is anti-privacy do you agree? Tracking should not be enabled by default. Period. Tracking as an out of the box feature and not something a user chooses to opt into is anti-privacy.
If you wanted a specific type of answer for your “invitation” then be more specific when you ask. You replied to me with that question, I gave you my answer and you didn’t like it.
You still can’t do it. this is pointless. have a nice day.
Again you just don’t like my answer. Yet you have nothing to say about it being factually incorrect.
You too.
While it was kinda lame for Mozilla to add it with it already opted-in the way they did
That’s really the rub here. Reading the technical explainer on the project, it’s a pretty good idea. The problem is that they came down on the side of “more data” versus respecting their users:
Having this enabled for more people ensures that there are more people contributing to aggregates, which in turn improves utility. Having this on by default both demands stronger privacy protections — primarily smaller epsilon values and more noise — but it also enables those stronger protections, because there are more people participating. In effect, people are hiding in a larger crowd.
In short, they pulled a “trust us, bro” and turned an experimental tracking system on by default. They fully deserve to be taken to task over this.
is this something I need to do every single update?
The answer will always from now on be ‘yes’, for every annoying privacy invading toggle you have to change, it is in the best interest of the software creators to force you to do it in the way that benefits them most.
Our opinions are no longer as important as their ability to harvest our data.
Not if you switch browsers.
It’s been a wild ride, but it’s time to get off.
This is just the beginnings of the enshittification of FF. There are others out there, Ladybird for example, deserves our attention being built completely from scratch engine and all. Though it’s not slated to become fully usable until 2026 because, they’re building the engine from scratch lol
All the naysayers in these comments read like shills
Amusing people of what you are guilty of. Sounds familiar…
Yes, how amusing indeed. Unless you meant to type ‘assuming’? Either way, I’m more of a fanboy, not a shill. Shill’s get paid. Fanboys just like their product.
Pest vs Cholera situation here…
Firefox should do an opt-in and they usually open new page with major updates with a pretty whats new changelog.
Just make it a headline topic ffs.Regarding it’s just clicking this one textbox:
Remember: Businesses also use Firefox. If you want to protect even a shred of your co-workers or clients you need to set up a fuck-load of tools to mass-disable this one little checkbox.If it’s added as already opted in, I assume they pop something up to make it clear what’s been added and enabled, and how it affects the user’s privacy, with a link to the settings to change it if desired?
If so, that’s not too bad, no.
If they added it and didn’t make it clear, or worse yet didn’t call attention to it at all, that would piss me off.
They didn’t, just like every other mainstream browser does. It was pretty lame. It was in the change notes but I don’t know too many people that read those anymore. Their explanation of the system and the ease to turn it off placated me. I have the feature on and have had it on since the day it was released.
I find it kind of funny that your shared link url contain tracking parameters.
Oh, but when you say you can easily turn off all the crypto crap from Brave, the bitches start crying. And second, for some bitches, it seems like firing an employee who has cancer is better somehow than donating against same-sex marriage. There are levels of evil, and I know who’s the lesser evil between the two.
Call me a fanboy if you want,
I will.
It can be turned off too, easily.
Same for Chrome.
With ublock origin it’s also moot, since ublock origin blocks all the ads anyways.
This is a non-argument; uBO ins’t even developed by Mozilla, so they don’t deserve credit for it.
Is there any opportunity to rage about Firefox that you don’t take? Seriously, so predictable
No, there isn’t. Just block me.
Done and done.
If anyone is on the fence this absolute tool shed has this in their profile:
I have no sympathy for GAFAM, nor for Mozilla.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Hope this results in Firefox changing it to be opt in and not result in Firefox going the way of the dodo - We can’t have Chromium be the only option, and without somebody developing base Firefox, the forks are going to die off
There’s always the Ladybird browser and an independent open source browser engine called Servo that’s under The Linux Foundation
If the Servo engine + accompanying browser will look like a Terminal pulled out of darkness into a desktop environment or an app developed in 1998 by Microsoft/any other UI designer at the time this is nothing I’d would want to use at work nor at home even if I am paid to use it…
I appreciate your apprehension. Fortunately, you don’t need to speculate. Go try it and find out.
Currently: If it’s on Windows, sure. If it’s Linux only, no because I have no desktop environment on my server.
I could see tor browser continuing to be developed. There are enough users who are technical enough to take on a browser project.
That battle is lost. Wait for ladybird or servo if you have any hope.
It isn’t about indvidual privacy. It’s about not further empowering the wealthy and the entities that serve them. I’m disappointed with Mozilla, but this seems to have become par for the course
As a user, ‘privacy preserving attribution’ is unappealing for a few reasons.
-
It seems it would overwhelmingly benefit a type of website that I think is toxic for the internet as a whole - AI generated pages SEO’d to the gills that are designed exclusively as advertisement delivery instruments.
-
It’s a tool that quantitatively aids in the refinement of clickbait, which I believe is an unethical abuse of human psychology.
-
Those issues notwithstanding, it’s unrealistic to assume that PPA will make the kind of difference that Mozilla thinks it might. I believe it’s naive to imagine that any advertiser would prefer PPA to the more invasive industry standard methods of tracking. It would be nice if that wasn’t the case, but, I don’t see how PPA would be preferable for advertisers, who want more data, not less.
As a user, having more of my online activity available and distributed doesn’t help or benefit me in any way.
Kudos for putting together good reasons that you don’t like PPA, while also acknowledging that Mozilla is trying to solve a problem.
Yours is one of the very few reasonable objections I’ve read IMO - when the PPA outrage first erupted, I read through how it worked. Unique ID + website unaware of interaction, but browser recognizing, then feeding it to an intermediate aggregator that anonymizes data by aggregating from multiple users without sharing their IDs, with the aim of trying to find a middle ground seems fair to me. Especially with the opt-out being so easy.
However, your points about classes clickbait encouragement, SEO feeding, and the uncertainty that this will solve the web spamminess as it is are valid concerns.
Why should we give advertisers any data at all, I don’t get it? I agree it’s better than how tracking is being done today, but why create a tool to distribute information about my behavior across different sites (yes, anonymized)?
Because hosting costs money, and sustainable services need revenue sources.
News we read was put together by a team of journalists, editors, etc.
Video streaming takes a lot of storage, bandwidth, processing, licensing.
And so on.
Price gouging is bad, but reasonable income is necessary.
Billboard ads that don’t target users and don’t track effectiveness are dangerous financially for advertisers, and would pay much less to ad hosters.
Anonymous, aggregated tracking is a healthy compromise.
-
Please stop taking the dark path, firefox…
There are no ethical companies, only ones that are currently more profitable to operate as if they were.
Hmm, interesting. I would expect NOYB to not just file complaints for no reason, but my understanding of PPA is that things get aggregated, which would make it irrelevant for the GDPR. Either I’m missunderstanding something, or NOYB or Mozilla is…
100% agree, anonymized data is pretty much irrelevant to the GDPR. An exception would be if it can be de-anonymized with reasonable means.
User-unique gets collected, and then the user-unique data sent to a remote server.
Only on the remote server will this data be aggregated, or so Mozilla says.
Arkenfox user.js, or derivative broswers like Librewolf on the desktop and Mull on android are there for a reason. Firefox default settings are not the safer, although it has all the knobs to make it a much better experience.
doesn’t sound good
I see these comments are nothing but good discussion!
Turning the feature on by default is bad, but I don’t think that legal complaints are the way to go as well as the aggressive tone of NOYB. Firefox is the only browser developed and maintained professionally which has the potential of offering some privacy on the web. Given the importance of web browsers volunteer work just won’t cut it with the amount of features and security concerns that a browser needs.
NOYB would’ve done much better by talking to Mozilla directly and advocating for them to do the right thing going for a legal complaint as the final nuclear option. If the was the case, then good that there’s a complaint, but the article does not indicate the any of this happened.
NOYB has the right to send a complaint if it think a company infringe upon right to privacy. Mozilla isn’t entitled to special treatment or special notice before filling a complaint.
Mozilla should have expected this. They claim to defend users privacy so they should understand why consent for data collection is important. Also there was public outcry and criticism of opt-out, and yet they haven’t backed down.
If Mozilla resolve these issues, NOYB could ask for the complaint to be dropped. I hope they do resolve this, and do drop the complaint.
there is this approach where if the neighbor is loud, you first try to speak with them, and if they don’t care then you go to the police. have you heard of it?
NOYB would’ve done much better by talking to Mozilla directly and advocating for them to do the right thing going for a legal complaint as the final nuclear option. I
It has been already vastly demonstrated by Mozilla, that going to them and talking to them about how they shouldn’t do shitty things doesn’t work.
If it takes legal action to even try and save the browser, I’m all for it.
Okay, but what if after all this legal action Mozilla decides that it’s no longer worth serving the privacy conscious crowd? Which browser will you use then?
Things only happen in a desirable direction if there is dialogue. Linus made the decision about making Linux GPL but he is against aggressive enforcement. He thinks it’s much smarter to go and slowly convince the offending parties that it’s in their benefit.
Okay, but what if after all this legal action Mozilla decides that it’s no longer worth serving the privacy conscious crowd? Which browser will you use then?
Firefox.
Just because the execs decide to stop serving the software, doesn’t mean the copies (and source code!) already out in the wild will automagickally stop functioning. You’ll still be able to visit websites the day after, the month after, the year after… And there’s still the devs, since they’re not the execs.
By the time there’s issues, there’ll still be the forks. Someone will have already step up to fork and keep the work on their own, too; the name just weighs enough that someone will want to be “the next Firefox” (not “the next Mozilla”). Or even better, the devs (obvs not the execs) will have jumped ship into any one of the various alternative projects such as ladybird, or might even have started a new project from scratch, hopefully intending for it to be a leaner and better browsr.
This hope just feels like cope to me. Glad you have a positive outlook on life regardless.
No hope, no cope. Just a basic understanding on how the HTTP infrastructure and time dilation work.
Sorry, but I don’t believe that’s realistic. Devs need to be paid. To be paid they need execs. Donations might sustain a small project, but not a web browser. Linux is developed primarily by devs employed by the big corporations. It would never survive on donations and volunteer labour. Same for Firefox. A browser is too complicated to be run as a GitHub project.
You can have one or two execs, as a treat; but certainly they don’t need to be paid crazy figures like what has been the case with Mozilla as of late. It’s not like they’re that important, in particular for the kind of project something like Firefox is (which could do with eg.: coop governance).
Now now. If Mozilla is breaking the law here, of course someone would report them for it. There’s no need to shoot the messenger when everything was predictable.
Turning the feature on by default is bad, but
Nope, no further. Downvoted and blocked.
Don’t you fucking try and justify this.
talking to Mozilla directly and advocating for them to do the right thing going for a legal complaint as the final nuclear option
Fuck that, they know what they’re doing and they know what the right thing is. Mozilla is the enemy for some time now, Firefox’s development is basically held hostage by a shitty corporation and a toothless foundation.
Right, but what other browser are you going to use?
Big “what are you going to do, vote republican?” energy here.
So what, are we giving Mozilla a free pass to do anything now? Is the new bar “not quite as shitty as Google”?
Absolutely not and is not what I said. Just that due to lack of alternatives it’s not really beneficial for privacy enthousiasts to make the only browser with privacy features dislike the community it’s working for. If NOYB has the resources for a legal complaint, it has the resources to lead this dialogue.
Why do you assume they haven’t warned Mozilla in advance?
Also, Mozilla was fully aware that what they were doing is in breach of GDPR. I find it extremely hard to believe that the makers of Firefox are not fully familiarized with it by now.
Last but not least Mozilla is doing this for financial gain. It’s selling pur data to advertisers. Why should we excuse it? It’s a very hostile act.
If Mozilla has hit rock bottom and has been reduced to selling our data to survive then that’s that. We’ll find another way and another FOSS browser. Accepting it is not an option.
deleted by creator
Firefox Firefox Chromium Firefox
Fixed that one for you.
Netscape Communicator, Netscape Communicator, KHTML, Netscape Communicator
Removed by mod
🙄
people refuse to boycott anything, for any amount of time. thats what leads to getting to be so expensive.
in reality, it would be ideal if everyone was willling to boycott anything (maybe everything ) for any amount of time ( possibly up to a max of infinity )so, beyond cookies is it?
deleted by creator
For good privacy (from fingerprinting) it is undoubtedly a bad choice.
“B… but Mozilla fights for privacy and the free internet!!!11!!11!!”
Well deserved
Hopefully this makes some of the Firefox shills finally realize it’s time to change our recommendations.
I’ve heard so much shit lately about Firefox, it has become a sinking ship and I’m eager to see who picks up the shards and runs with it.
And what else should be recommended?
The choice is basically between Firefox or skinned Chromium.
Do you really want to experience first-hand just why Internet Explorer was this hated?
Here’s a hint: de facto monopoly on browser market that allowed them to control the web standards back then and their ideas were not good.it has become a sinking ship and I’m eager to see who picks up the shards and runs with it.
I don’t think you have any idea how much work it takes to create a new browser.
Labybird is a completely new upcoming open source browser, complete with its own from scratch engine
Theres also Servo an open source engine led by the Linux Foundation
Ah yes, let’s recommend the browser that is “targeting a first Alpha release for early adopters in 2026.”
I think there’s kind of a 3rd choice, WebKit.
Chrome was great, till it wasn’t. IE always was bad. Edge is chromium.
Firefox has stayed closer to “don’t be evil” than many companies. Is say far more than the other options.
WebKit is really only available on Apple devices in any meaningful way.
Completely agree. I understood WebKit to be a different browse engine than chromium or Firefox.
While chromium and Firefox have wider platform options, there’s “kind of” a 3rd runner even though locked to apple.
I agree Linux and open source is king.
I think there’s kind of a 3rd choice, WebKit.
That’s where Chromium came from originally, so not really 3rd.
I was thinking WebKit was closer to Netscape in origin.
You made me go look it up. 😉 and I think we’re both wrong…. (Here’s my edit…. Poster above is right. I read it wrong, so only I am wrong on the origin of WebKit)
Below from Wikipedia:
WebKit started as a fork of the KHTML and KJS software libraries from KDE.
On April 3, 2013, Google announced that it had forked WebCore, a component of WebKit, to be used in future versions of Google Chrome
Hopefully this makes some of the Firefox shills finally realize it’s time to change our recommendations.
There’s still nothing better, you just have to be careful to block all their moneymaking bullshit attempts like save-your-shit-into-our-pocket and virginity-preserving assfucking. I use Fennec on android, though.
There are forks, like libre wolf (desktop) and mull (Android) that don’t ship with some of the bullshit, Firefox ships.
Yeah, and using those is pretty good, but they don’t really do anything you can’t do just by changing settings in Firefox, and if Firefox doesn’t have any users those die right along with it.
LibreWolf is better, includes ublock and no tracking by default.
There are good chromium based browsers too, I’m not aware of Vivaldi having any major controversies or shady business decisions in recent years, it has a built in adblock thats independent of chromium’s upstream.
If you disqualify every browser due to its upstream having issues then you should probably revert to using CURL or something convoluted like what richard stallman does. Every browser that exists today is a fork of some browser that previously was good but started to suck.
I don’t think chromium should ever be encouraged. That is the one browser family trying and mostly succeeding at swallowing up the Internet. Google already has way too much power over the Internet, and it will only get worse if people don’t start leaving their ecosystem
The problem is that Librewolf’s continued existence depends on Firefox continuing to exist. And while I like Vivaldi (but not its closed-sourceness), if all browsers end up being Chromium-based, Google still has an effective monopoly on web standards.
If the only reason google doesn’t have a monopoly on web standards is because firefox “exists”, then I think Google does in fact have a monopoly on web standards. Other browsers exists besides chrome and firefox ones, some like Konqeror even work pretty well for how old they are, but I think firefox is eventually going to see the same fate as netscape slowly becoming more and more irrelevant, and unlike netscape they can’t exactly sue Google for anti-trust (at least not without losing 90% of their funding)
Ladybird is a completely new open source browser with it’s own from scratch engine, so that’s one that hasn’t been forked from any other browser
You’re talking about the wrong thing. The Mozilla Foundation is and has been acting a fool in recent years. Firefox, the open source program, is doing mostly OK. Obviously the two are closely connected, but they’re definitely not the same thing, and this matters when discussing policy.
deleted by creator
