Hello.
I don't have the neccesary information to say whether this is correct, moral,
or neccesary, but I will say that I believe Opt-in is pro-privacy, while
Opt-out is anti-privacy.
If Firefox is dedicated to preserving privacy, then no Opt-in data feature
should be added.
Thank you.
___
If this will be implemented, I’ll have to file a complaint with the relevant
Landes- and Bundesbeauftragten für Datenschutz, and, possibly, escalate this to
the EU Data Privacy commissioners office.
I’d prefer if you’d avoid doing this.
___
governance
Wow... I'm not sure I can say it any other way.
Having something like this be opt-out is very anti-privacy.
I'm thoroughly disappointed. I guess, even after having used Firefox since the
single digit releases, it's time to look elsewhere.
I wish you the worst of luck in your new venture to inf
I somehow dont believe anymore in this.
What I spot is that there is more and more bodies which are interested in that
kind of data to provide better adds to 'customers', and it sound like one of
those bodies reach Firefox and show them how much money they can get for this
data.
If you will i
On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 4:56:44 PM UTC+1, Georg Fritzsche wrote:
> Hi,
>
> for Firefox we want to better understand how people use our product to
> improve their experience. To do that, we are planning to run a new SHIELD
> study that tests how we can collect additional data in a privacy pre
hi there.
i do not understand the need to know the top 100 sites for improving the
"product".
can you explain?
i see a lot of big issues which should be improved regarding the performance
and an overloaded feature-set, ui-quirks and several page rendering issues.
none of these would be addres
Hello, Redditors...
On 21/08/17 08:56, Georg Fritzsche wrote:
> One solution is the use of differential privacy [2] [3], which allows us to
> collect sensitive data without being able to make conclusions about
> individual users, thus preserving their privacy.
If you are going to comment here, yo
> Asks for sensitive data center most commonly around knowing something in
> relation to which sites a user visits:
>
>-
>
>"Which top sites are users visiting?"
>-
>
>"Which sites using Flash does a user encounter?"
>-
>
>"Which sites does a user see heavy Jank on?"
>
On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 4:39:36 PM UTC+2, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Hello, Redditors...
>
> On 21/08/17 08:56, Georg Fritzsche wrote:
> > One solution is the use of differential privacy [2] [3], which allows us to
> > collect sensitive data without being able to make conclusions about
> > in
On 22/08/17 07:45, turin...@gmail.com wrote:
> But the disagreement is not about the idea that the technology does
> not work. But that in principal collecting more data without users
> having the option for disable it is moral wrong no matter how
> trustworthy you are or useful it is for the produ
On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 10:56:44 AM UTC-5, Georg Fritzsche wrote:
> One solution is the use of differential privacy [2] [3], which allows us to
> collect sensitive data without being able to make conclusions about
> individual users, thus preserving their privacy.
Differential privacy is a g
Why collect on the client side when the server side for the larger sites most
definitely collects usage data to much more detail than you would ever do?
Wouldn't Mozilla be in a strong enough position to ask for statistics of user
agents from Facebook, Google, etc., and maybe even what hoops the
Hello Siva,
I'll try and chime in.
1. The main problem that is at stake here is improving Firefox for
websites that our users actually use. We fight a perpetual fight to
improve Firefox for our users, which means that we need to know where to
spend our limited resources. While we can manua
On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 4:49:56 PM UTC+2, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 22/08/17 07:45,
> > But the disagreement is not about the idea that the technology does
> > not work. But that in principal collecting more data without users
> > having the option for disable it is moral wrong no matter h
On 22/08/17 08:07, turin...@gmail.com wrote:
> Correct me if i am wrong but this is presented as a solution to
> collect data without having to get explicit consent. It is not clear
> that user will be able to disabled it or not. If this the case then
> please be more clear as it will lead to misun
I made a thoughtful comment and it was rejected with a response that I need to
show I'm familiar with Differential Privacy and RAPPOR before commenting. I'll
do that before my actual comment.
I'm a computer scientist working in an adjacent field and I've read enough
papers on Differential Priv
Hoping to provide constructive feedback.
A little about me as a user first so you can understand:
1) I purposely do not use Chrome
2) I purposely do not use Google and use DuckDuckGo instead as my search engine
3) I purposely do not use Gmail and use FastMail instead
4) I use uBlock, self-destruct
>
> The idea of opt-out data collection is not really the
> question; the difference here is that the data is potentially more
> sensitive.
>
> Gerv
Exactly. Because the data is more sensitive the idea of opt-out comes into
question before the question of the technology. If a person thinks th
We're currently using React in multiple projects including Test Pilot
extensions and DevTools.
It came to light that React license purposefully may impact its users position.
A strong voice has been raised by Raúl Kripalani -
https://medium.com/@raulk/if-youre-a-startup-you-should-not-use-react
For the purposes of this thread I am not taking a specific position on
the overall issue, but as somebody who has worked on performance I would
like to point something out for discussion:
On 8/22/2017 9:19 AM, jotaf98--- via governance wrote:
"Which top sites are users visiting?"
There's
Hi,
great question.
We have been getting better at tracking down general performance issues and
breakage, but usually we don't know which sites this is happening on.
I think there are two parts here:
- Understanding which domains things happen on, e.g. on which sites did
feature X break.
- Underst
I'm totally support for any user research, if it is following the rules we
advocate for...
“Individuals’ security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and must
not be treated as optional.”
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/#principle-04
“No surprises
Use and share information i
> The objection is not to DP's privacy guarantees, but to the fact that FF
> will phone home with every website we visit. A neat list of all the
websites
> I visit will be sent to a central location, in chronological order.
I think this is misleading. What we would be sending is a neat list of
jum
How do you see this study lining up with the data already being collected for
the Firefox Health Report? This discussion strikes me as raising similar
questions and tradeoffs, which were discussed on this forum and also blogged
about by Mitchell and the metrics team.*
Users currently have optio
This would be a legal team question not likely governance
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:38 AM, zbraniecki--- via governance <
governance@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
> We're currently using React in multiple projects including Test Pilot
> extensions and DevTools.
>
> It came to light that React license
On 08/22/2017 12:38 PM, zbraniecki--- via governance wrote:
We're currently using React in multiple projects including Test Pilot
extensions and DevTools.
It came to light that React license purposefully may impact its users position.
A strong voice has been raised by Raúl Kripalani -
https:/
Hi,
I completely agree with Irvin here. This proposal is extremely
uncomfortable for me, even after reading about Rappor, I share the same
concerns others have expressed in this topic about privacy and user
expectations.
I think we can be creative if the problem is that we need to understand
whic
Hi,
Daniele opened a topic about this the other day:
https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/react-license-and-mozilla/18293
Cheers.
El 22/08/17 a las 21:54, Ehsan Akhgari via governance escribió:
> On 08/22/2017 12:38 PM, zbraniecki--- via governance wrote:
>> We're currently using React in multiple p
See also bug 1301878.
Mike
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:58:38PM +0200, Rubén Martín via governance wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Daniele opened a topic about this the other day:
>
> https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/react-license-and-mozilla/18293
>
> Cheers.
>
> El 22/08/17 a las 21:54, Ehsan Akhgari via gov
On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:54:55 PM UTC-7, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> > Should we be worried about bundling our software with software that uses
> > this license?
> Is the worry that Mozilla not be able to file a patent legal case
> against Facebook?
As far as I know Mozilla doesn't hold so
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 3:12 PM, zbraniecki--- via governance <
governance@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:54:55 PM UTC-7, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
>
> > > Should we be worried about bundling our software with software that
> uses this license?
> > Is the worry that Mozil
On Monday, 21 August 2017 15:56:44 UTC, Georg Fritzsche wrote:
> "Which sites does a user see heavy Jank on?"
Why can't FireFox display a bar at the top asking the user to report the page
for issues instead?
A bar like the one that tells users about non-responsive scripts, ect. That way
you a
My initial thoughts were RAPPOR is just another data collection system that
claims to respect its user's privacy but doesn't really, though upon a little
research I've found it does the exact opposite, wherein it really does respect
privacy by aggregating real data with fake, random data. It rem
I think the premise that you need to collect data on the top sites that a user
visits may be flawed. Won't you be contributing to the dominance of
(already-dominant) top sites by optimizing for them specifically?
It also seems that you could get a reasonably accurate idea of what sites are
most
34 matches
Mail list logo
