I understand there is a perfectly legitimate need and reason to do what they do. However “privacy-first data sharing” sounds like doublespeak to me. In the same vein as the famous “war is peace, freedom is slavery.”
That’s rather cynical.
What’s wrong with someone wanting to share their data with certain people while also demanding that those people respect the data’s privacy?
Maybe I'm in the minority but Mozilla's brand had been permanently tarnished in recent years and I do not think of them as a 'privacy first' organization
By dictionary definition, cynicism is an attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.
Skepticism is defined as the doubt as to the truth of something.
Extreme doubt as to the integrity of a company’s data privacy practices is the dictionary definition of cynicism.
I won’t pry, but I suspect that you are not a web developer, by trade.
It is common knowledge in the web development field that Mozilla is a, if not the, standard bearer for consumer privacy protection in the browser wars.
Safari is currently taking the helm, though.
Indeed, Google may have out-competed them on the marketing messaging front.
Like I mentioned, there are perfect legitimate reasons and need to do it.
However, the best privacy practice is to never share it. If you share, then it is no longer privacy first. The goals which one wants to achieve come first. I'm not saying it will not have adequate privacy protection. But it's not "privacy first" because it introduces the risk to someone's privacy for the benefit of something. That something comes first.
It certainly isn’t “privacy last” or “privacy later”, either, shall we call it “privacy enforced” or “privacy now”?