Comment by throwaway6473 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway6473 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

- Advertisers buy user data from Firefox, who can then resell or provide this data to others.

- Others buy that data.

- Big data companies and others aggregate this information.

- Cookie or IP are not necessarily required to identify users; thumbprinting, datetime, and behavioral matching can identify users adequately.

- Advertisers and analytics giants can ingest data that includes PII, if it’s encrypted, and that can be decrypted.

- New methods of tracking have replaced old ones and new methods are even better than old ones.

- This data can be used to group users in many ways, so it can know essentially who you are, when you do things, what you will do, and who you’ll do them with.

- This information is used for targeting ads, but can be used for other purposes.

- Technology to utilize this data has been evolving much more quickly.

- Why just target ads? Why not provide users with a version of reality that optimizes their consumer behavior?

- Why attempt to ensure control through enforcement? Why not control motivation and thought?

- Why have political elections? Why not control decisions?

Firefox isn't supposed to be a business to begin with. Mozilla is a nonprofit organization, isn't it?

If they can't survive off of donations, then they don't deserve to exist. If they want to sell user data or search defaults, Mozilla should fork Firefox.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2H8wx1aBiQ

When Zuck said this, I could feel the smarm, but I respect his honesty, and I know what he's not saying. Mozilla is trying to spit the same game about its Google search default deal, as if that is the same thing. It's not, because when Facebook does it, it's a for-profit corporation selling out its users. When Mozilla does it, it's a nonprofit organization selling out its users to the single largest for-profit web property in the history of the Internet.

Google is a monopolist. They should lose the right to pay off their competition.

That's not what a nonprofit is. They do not survive off of donations alone. They have to have a public or charitable purpose. They can sell products and services for any amount or profit. They are required to reinvest the profits and not distribute them to owners.

They had my faith until they started selling user data. I've written about this before. When they pulled the Mr. Robot stunt, Mozilla fully jumped the shark while riding Firefox. Let's just say I'm not feeling charitable towards them ever since. I think that's justified.

Selling user data isn't what Firefox is; it's what Mozilla is. Firefox is free software.

fair enough. how do you feel about duckduckgo? I see ddg as doing the same thing Mozilla is: selling anonymized, aggregate data to help marketers find out what is being searched for, but not connecting it to the individuals.

If you know about the third party doctrine and you still collect user data while praising the ideal of privacy, I think you’re serving at least two masters, and Mammon is one. Privacy may be another, but I’m free to doubt your commitment to privacy while serving idols. I don’t believe that anonymization is the issue, though it’s related. It’s about creating a system of control, and I have no desire to be part of that system.

They’re outsourcing the liability and accountability of gathering the data in the first place while saying they value my privacy. I know they do: they’re cashing the checks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com