739
Mozilla is already revising its new Firefox terms to clarify how it handles user data
(www.theverge.com)
this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
739 points (97.1% liked)
Technology
63614 readers
3293 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Telemetry benefits everyone, knowing which features are getting used, knowing what parts are causing crashes... It lets developers target what to improve and fix instead of going in blind. I get that collecting data can be scary, because so far everyone has been busy selling that data. But there's a reason why data is so valuable, if it's properly handled and anonymized it benefits everyone using firefox.
I'm sure they'll make do
glub glub much?
There is no justification for opt-out telemetry data collection, and there is no proper handling of data obtained despite user pushback. Also, properly anonymizing large data sets is not as trivial as you think. Even "fully anonymized" data set, assuming everything's possible's been done, can lead to correlation when added with other data. Even "cohorts" can lead to the creation of an aggregate group with so few individuals that it basically boils down to individual tracking.
Why do you think people are so vocal about not letting any of this happens in the first time? It's not for blind idealism. It's basically because even a minimum waiver on "supposedly anonymous" data is a huge blow to your privacy. And some people care about that.
Besides, Mozilla's been pushing for a shitton of features that are constantly blamed for Firefox becoming as bad as its competition, and constantly turned off/removed. If they cared even a tiny bit about user feedback, the last… 3, 5 years of decisions from Mozilla would have been very different. Feature usage telemetry is a joke to make people accept their bullshit; the only thing that influence feature development is management or very heavy pushback, and that happens in dev issues, not with telemetry feedback.
While they have to be careful, there can be reasonable ones to help what they do/stop doing.
Example, "x% of telemetry enabled users enable the bookmark bar", not particularly useful for harmful purposes, but if it were 0.00%, then they know efforts accommodating the bookmark bar would be pointless. Not many users would go out of their way to say "I don't use some feature I'm ignoring", and telemetry is able to convey that data, so the developer is not guessing based on his preference.
That being said, the telemetry is so opaque that it's hard to make an informed decision as to whether the telemetry in question is risky or not. Might be good to have some sort of accumulated telemetry data that you can click to review and submit, and have that data be actually human readable and to the point for salient points.
That's a nice way to start and end a discussion.
How convenient for you.
It's exactly the level of discourse your misinformation deserved.
I think it'd be less creepy if there was an easily accessible public dashboard displaying this telemetry. E.g. like counters showing how many people hide the bookmark bar. If you can instantly see what data your browser is sending in an easily digestible format (ie not a dump of JSON in a submenu), it's easier to gain a quick understanding of the benefits vs minimal privacy tradeoffs.
But it really depends on trust: trust that they're not collecting more than they claim, and trust that the data is properly anonymized. Mozilla has lost that trust.
No, fuck that and quit bootlicking. Software makers did just fine without telemetry for decades; your supposed justification is nothing but a bullshit lazy excuse.
They actually did not, almost every software out there is mining your information. Software developers rely on and need data, you can't guess what people want. Whether it's from studies, testers, surveys, or telemetry, developers need information about what users like, what they don't, how they interact with the software... This is what makes data so valuable, and why businesses like Google can exist. Denying open source software telemetry is shooting yourself in the foot.
Why would I want software developers (particularly web browser) to guess what I want? I will tell them what I want, otherwise they have no business serving it to me.
If I'm not offering that data, it means I don't want you to have it. Simple as that.
You might, but 99% of users will never take a step towards giving any feedback whatsoever.
Yes, which means they don't want anything from them. Rather than seeing those people as nothing more than potential profit, just move on.
And yet they're using the application. Don't you want the applications that you use to work better? This is what telemetry enables, the ability to give feedback without jumping through 10 hoops, creating an account, responding to a survey, or whatever other method you're thinking of to give feedback.
The concept of informed consent continues to evade tech bros. It makes me wonder how many other areas of your life you apply this line of reasoning to.
Do you actively consent to everything that happens around you? When you pick up an apple, do you consent to the pesticides used on them? Truth is, everyday of our lives we passively consent to a myriad of things to other people that know better than we do.
In this case no matter how many ways firefox is telling users that they have no reason to be worried, they keep clutching their pitchforks in the worry that firefox has suddenly turned into google (who btw have to abide by privacy laws just the same). There are no informed here, only pitchfork wielders.
THAT'S the example you choose?
Absolutely stunning. You actually unironically do not understand what consent is. You need to take an ethics class.
I'll give you the really basic version:
#1: People are allowed to say no to you for any reason or no reason at all. It doesn't matter if you think their reasons are invalid or misinformed. No means no.
#2: A lack of a "no" does not mean "yes". If a person cannot say "no" to what you are doing because they have no idea you're doing it in the first place then that, in some ways, is even worse than disregarding a "no". At least in that case they know something has been done to them.
That, by the way, is what the "informed" in "informed consent" means. It doesn't mean "a person needs to know what they're talking about in order for their 'no' to be valid", like you seem to think it means.
Doctors used to routinely retain tissue samples for experimentation without informing their patients they were doing this. The reasoning went that this didn't harm the patient at all, the origin of the tissue was anonymized, the patient wouldn't understand why tissue samples were needed anyway, and it might save lives. That's a much better justification than trying to develop a web browser, and yet today that practice is widely considered to be deplorable, almost akin to rape.