375

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] lattrommi@lemmy.ml 112 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] threeganzi@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

I find it kind of funny that your shared link url contain tracking parameters.

[-] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 41 points 3 days ago

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

[-] lattrommi@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago

That's probably the better way of putting it. As far as mainstream browsers go.

[-] LWD@lemm.ee 16 points 3 days ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 6 points 3 days ago
[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 days ago

All the naysayers in these comments read like shills

Amusing people of what you are guilty of. Sounds familiar...

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ludicolo@lemmy.ml 24 points 3 days ago

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

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

[-] obinice@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] tetris11@lemmy.ml 12 points 3 days ago

is this something I need to do every single update?

[-] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago

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.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago

Not if you switch browsers.

It's been a wild ride, but it's time to get off.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] voluble@lemmy.ca 24 points 3 days ago

As a user, 'privacy preserving attribution' is unappealing for a few reasons.

  1. 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.

  2. It's a tool that quantitatively aids in the refinement of clickbait, which I believe is an unethical abuse of human psychology.

  3. 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.

[-] GravelPieceOfSword@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] threeganzi@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

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)?

[-] GravelPieceOfSword@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] Icalasari@fedia.io 58 points 3 days ago

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

[-] prosp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago

That battle is lost. Wait for ladybird or servo if you have any hope.

[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

There's always the Ladybird browser and an independent open source browser engine called Servo that's under The Linux Foundation

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] wuphysics87@lemmy.ml 29 points 3 days ago

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

[-] kixik@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

so, beyond cookies is it?

[-] shotgun_crab@lemmy.world 22 points 3 days ago

Please stop taking the dark path, firefox...

[-] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

There are no ethical companies, only ones that are currently more profitable to operate as if they were.

[-] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 7 points 3 days ago

And they rely on our good will...

Use the forks folks

[-] Ephera@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago

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...

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
375 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

34505 readers
605 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS