laughterlaughter @ laughterlaughter @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

689

Joined

1 yr. ago

Nope, telemetry doesn't count. Do you know why? Because the browser informed you that they were collecting telemetry with a small bottom message, giving you the option to turn it off if you wanted.

In other words, they asked you for your consent.

Now, please answer the question.

What do you think of Mozilla activating a feature that phones home without telling you first?

Not the point. This is a completely different argument.

Let's make it simpler for you:

What do you think of Mozilla activating a feature that phones home without telling you first?

^ Answer that question, and that question only.

Any "but... but..." is not the point, which is what you've been doing so far.

It's not about doing the right thing or not. I completely understand that. It's about consent.

Consent.

Consent.

If they don't ask for consent now, they won't ask for consent later for something you, yes, you won't like.

Not the point. Goodbye.

Your browser already submits information about you by virtue of existing.

I already addressed this, for I wrote: "I decide when my browser sends anything to the Internet about me." If I visit a webpage, I know the browser is sending a request. What I wasn't expecting was the actual browser collecting data on its own and sending it to some third-party.

What this does is put the mechanisms to ring fence that in place. The same way that the Enhanced Tracking Protection does.

Not the point and we've already gone through this.

Regarding the opt-in versus opt-out stuff. That’s a dead fish. People go with what the default is. By default ETP is on. By default, autoplay is off. By default, HTTPS only mode is always on.

None of that is sending data about my browsing habits to some third-party. Maybe HTTPS, but even you can tell you're using HTTPS because of an icon next to the URL in the address bar. Where is my "icon" for the ad-anonymization thingie? That's my point.

their* claims.

Nice FUD.

By your own logic, Chrome should have fewer developers than Konqueror, since its engine is essentially a fork of a fork of a fork.

No, you're mistaken. A fork is a whole new product. This is not a whole new product. It's a patch.

Have you independently confirmed this?

What is preventing user.js from doing exactly what you're describing right now on your system?

than*

Red herring, and you're missing the point, and this is getting frustrating. If you ignore the argument below again, I will stop responding to you.

From the Mozilla's website (so you don't say I'm ill-informed):

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution?as=u&utm_source=inproduct

Firefox creates a report based on what the website asks, but does not give the result to the website. Instead, Firefox encrypts the report and anonymously submits it using the Distributed Aggregation Protocol (DAP) to an “aggregation service”.

Zoom in:

Firefox encrypts the report and anonymously submits it using the Distributed Aggregation Protocol (DAP) to an “aggregation service”.

Zoom in:

anonymously submits it

Zoom in:

submits it

This is after an update, and it's opt-out, that is, enabled by default. And not a single notification about it. If I don't check my settings, or read about it, I would have never found out about this.

WHY IS MY BROWSER SUBMITTING ANYTHING WITHOUT ASKING ME FIRST?!

Plus it's described as an experiment. And I've already told Mozilla to NEVER include me in any of its "experiments," after the whole Mr. Robot fiasco. If this is labeled as an experiment, why is Mozilla not respecting my decision?

That's the issue I have with it. It doesn't matter what it is. It doesn't matter if it's "for my own good." I am supposed to be in control of my browser. I decide when my browser sends anything to the Internet about me, even if it's anonymized.

I would expect this from Chrome, and that's why I don't use it; not Firefox.

No, and that's why I don't use Chrome. But at least they said they'd do this.

Mozilla in turn said "hey here's this neat feature. Don't worry, it's optional!" And then they silently activated it for everyone with an update.

You're still missing the point. I know what the tech does. But it's opt-out without user consent, not opt-in. And there is some phoning home for it to work, isn't there?

This is Mozilla pulling your pants down while you sleep, grabbing your balls to put the cup, pulling the pants back up, then carrying on as if nothing happened.

Network

What's so horrifying about the fairness doctrine, according to them?

at it's weakest.

at its* weakest.

Wait, what's the context for this claim?

"They are already kicking you in the balls, so why not let Mozilla kick you too?"

The problem for me is not that they implemented this. The problem is that they TURNED IT ON without my consent!

When Chrome asks the user to activate a similar feature while Firefox doesn't - welp, no. They don't understand user consent.

Imagine finding a Mozilla microphone under your dining table. "Oh, but you can remove it and toss it. That's understanding user consent!"

These are old options. I checked these off long ago.

Yes. Yes, they did.