Mozilla Recognized as Most Trusted Internet Company for Privacy | Hacker News Reader

Mozilla Recognized as Most Trusted Internet Company for Privacy

blog.mozilla.org

323 pointscleverjake74 comments

Check the full results.[0] Mozilla ranked below AT&T, who had the iPad leak, below HP, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, eBay, Verizon, WebMD, etc.

They seem to have 'won' their category through being mis-categorized as 'Internet and Social Media', where they compete against Facebook and Twitter.

In terms of software vendors, they are outranked by most of the big names - only Google aren't mentioned.

Ranking behind that long list of companies, and only having to beat Twitter and Facebook on privacy issues is not a big win.

Edit: Also the source of this survey is very vague. It looks like a lobby/industry group who do nothing but put out surveys. No transparency on who the people behind it are, who makes up the board or how they are funded. From the website[1]:

Members of the RIM Council represent a cross-section of Fortune 500 companies and are champions of privacy and data protection in their organizations.

Interesting. So which companies exactly[2]?

RIM Council activities operate under strict confidentiality. Sponsorship revenues from participating Council companies provide funding for our core activities

Oh, right.

[0] http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/1/prweb10363796.htm

[1] http://www.ponemon.org/

[2] http://www.ponemon.org/rim-council

It should be noted that this was a web-based survey, not a ranking by security audits.

> Our Web-based research study asked respondents to name up to five companies in 25 different industries they believe to be the most trusted for protecting the privacy of their personal information [0]

It's not terribly surprising that, given only five choices, more people chose some of the most well-known corporations in the world rather than the relatively PR-challenged Mozilla.

[0] http://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/2012%20MTC%20Report...

That bit is fair enough. It's about trust (subjective) not trustworthiness (objective).

How can trustworthiness be objective while trust is subjective?

True. Trustworthiness is probably not a good word. What I meant was that trustworthiness could be construed as a objective measure (such as that reached by diligent security and privacy experts), while whether or not you actually trust someone is basically a feeling. Maybe "Fitness to be trusted" is a better term?

Your intended meaning was very clear since you used parenthesized qualifiers. IMO any argument on your usage is pedantic at best, but I would have put it as perceived and empirical/actual trustworthiness.

From the PRWeb article:

More than 100,000 adult-aged consumers were asked to name up to five companies they believe to be the most trusted for protecting the privacy of their personal information

This is nothing more than a name recognition contest. I'm actually surprised Mozilla made the list at all.

Yes, I agree. Also how many consumers know how their/others privacy is handled/valued by these companies. Beauty contest thats all. (most brand related surveys don't mean much, because not many people know a thing or 2 about the lesser known companies)

I really love what Mozilla is doing and they would be pretty close to #1 on my trusted companies list.

Sadly, the post is so misleading and borderline dishonest that it just makes them seem a bit less trustful. I mean, the study's categorization is seriously arbitrary and for example Microsoft, which is a direct Mozilla competitor, is ranked higher overall but isn't in the same category.

Also, Google (another Mozilla competitor) wasn't ranked this year, but they were rank 19 last year (Mozilla is 20)...

This is really a good example that you'll always find a way to segment your data so you can push your agenda.

As someone already mentioned these end-user surveys seem to be closer to popularity contests. I have no doubt MS, Google, Apple etc are astronomically more popular than Mozilla and will rank higher based on name recognition.

These results probably do hold another meaning but it would take someone better than me at testing to figure that out.

That's the main reason why Firefox is still my main browser, I trust the Mozilla Foundation to do the right thing. Also, there is no nagging "connect to your account" every time I restart the browser or open a new tab or whatever, I hate this message, I want to browse the web not connect to another service. Moreover I find it is still the more convenient browser for customization and tweaking. For instance I only have to set network.http.sendRefererHeader to 0 to prevent sending http referrers. I use the Nightly version and it's pretty stable although I would prefer not having to restart FF after each update.

Yup, I love using firefox for the same reasons. It's just so incredibly customizable, and you can't get that level of customizability/compatibility in any other major web browser.

This is some gerrymandered surveying.

Yes, technically Mozilla comes in at #1 in the Internet & Social Media Category, but that category excludes higher-ranking companies such as Amazon (classified as eCommerce), ebay (eCommerce), WebMD (healthcare), Microsoft (technology and software), and Intuit (technology and software).

Let's be real, if the parent company of Mint.com beats you, then this isn't really much to brag about. I mean, I do love me some Mozilla, but come on now.

The article's title is misleading. I read the linked study (pdf and prweb summary of results) and found nothing to support that they are the "Most Trusted Internet Company"... In fact, Amazon, eBay, WebMD, and Microsoft are all above it on the list. All of those I'd consider to be "Internet companies". If you alter it, as Mozilla did in the paragraph below, to read "Internet & Social Media" then it's right according to the linked pdf, but that's hardly the same thing as the title.

I do trust Mozilla far more than the other companies that made this list, but I can't help but feel their title is intentionally misleading.

I do find it odd that Mozilla didn't end up higher of course. Out of the listed entities I don't think any of the others are non-profit (nor have something like the Mozilla Manifesto as a guiding principal), and if any are I doubt that they understand crypto anywhere near as well as Mozilla. I trust Mozilla because they not only have the desire to keep me safe, but also have the technical know-how.

In other news: Mozilla basically the only major internet company whose business model isn't built on selling your privacy.

I love both companies, but you realize Mozilla makes most of their money because of a search deal with Google, right?

But since their goal isn't to make money...

Yeah, but selling your privacy isn't the point of its existence, unlike Google, Facebok, Twitter, etc. That makes it the top performer in the Special Olympics, so to speak.

I love Mozilla, but technically they do sell your search history for their funding, based on some opaque bidding process to become the default search provider in Firefox.

No. Having a default search engine is not "selling your search history" and Firefox makes it extremely easy to defeat the Google cookie if that is what you as a user wish to do.

>Yeah, but selling your privacy isn't the point of its existence, unlike Google

I usually agree with your comments, rayiner, but have to disagree with this one.

Unless there is very strong evidence to the contrary (and neither Mozilla's mission statement nor its non-profit status qualifies as very strong evidence), any organization that depends on an organization that 'sells your privacy' (your words) for over 90% of its income is just as bad-for-your-privacy in the long term as an organization that directly sells your privacy.

When I type my words in the little magic box mozilla sends them to the one company I want to see them -- google. I'm not sure how that's a betrayal of privacy? (unless Mozilla is sending other words to google.

But Mozilla actually has leverage over Google to commit to user privacy. If Google doesn't like what they're doing, Bing, Yandex, or any other search engine has the opportunity to be the new search default.

But most of their money comes from companies that do sell your privacy (ie: google for being the default search engine).

you're not forced to use it, though.

That's like saying you can eat a steak and be a vegetarian because the cow it came from eats grass.

What exactly is the business model?

It's a non-profit run with donations. I don't know how much of the code/other contributions are from the community and how much by Mozilla employees though. I could imagine that the translations - for instance - are mostly done by bilingual hobbyists.

This is totally incorrect. The majority of Mozilla's current funding comes from a deal with Google to make them the default search engine in Firefox. Google pays for this because search traffic is valuable.

Oops. I knew that they get a lot from such deals, but that much? (First Google result said it's 97% of their income).

Ironic that the page gives me a mixed content warning:

"The page at https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2013/01/28/privacy-day-2013/ displayed insecure content from http://blog.mozilla.org/files/2013/01/most-trusted-privacy-2...

As much as I love Mozilla for precisely this reason, it cannot go without remark that the majority of their funding continues to come from the metaphorical privacy antichrist, Google. This could change as early as 2014 when the search contract is due for renewal.

Can anyone comment on Mozilla's future revenue plans? Are they aiming to license Firefox OS?

Do you really believe that Google is the "metaphorical privacy antichrist" and if so, can I ask what exactly makes you feel that way?

People tell Google incredibly intimate things on an hourly basis, many of which Google then sells to pesterers or gives to three letter agencies. People may catch on eventually, but most simply don't think they need to care what the consequences may be.

What do you mean by this: "sells to pesterers"? I understand that Google has an algorithm that displays ads based on what I search for, and that in order to charge the advertiser Google will track when I click on an ad. I don't consider that "selling" my information. Is that what you are talking about, or is there some other product that I'm not aware of that Google uses to collect and actually sell data like, say, Rapleaf (https://www.rapleaf.com/) does?

Google doesn't sell anything.

Google sells users to its customers: advertisers.

No it doesn't. It sells ad space next to content on valuable internet properties. Google Search and YouTube being the two big ones.

Please everyone, stop sensationalizing this. Google doesn't "sell users" or "sell your privacy" any more than, e.g., NBC, which sells ads alongside its content.

Yes, it does; of course it does. Google's reason for getting everyone connected through its services is to gain an audience for targeted advertising. It's certainly not "sensationalizing" to point that out. It needs users for its advertisers, and it sells access to those users.

NBC does too--they are a business that depends on readership/viewership because they make their money from advertising. That means that their business is to attract as many consumers of their content as they can so that their advertisers can reach them.

I'm surprised that this would even be considered a controversial point to make. Perhaps you don't like the wording: calling you their "product" and the advertisers their "customers". But there's not meant to be a personal element to it. It's simply an explanation of what their business model is.

I think you're being a bit disingenuous. I'm pretty sure I understand Google's business model. And you should know that I understand it based on my other comments in this thread.

What I don't think is particularly helpful is the characterization of that business model as "selling users" or "selling privacy", which are phrasings that you and other commenters here have used. Those phrasings are designed to spread FUD about Google.

I don't think people usually say things like "NBC is selling it's users/viewers to advertisers." The normal thing to say is "NBC sells advertisement slots during its programs."

I've never said they're "selling privacy", whatever that means. Presumably, that's shorthand for selling access to personal information, which is a simplistic characterization but not entirely inaccurate with respect to how targeted advertising works.

However, I don't understand how it is spreading FUD to point out that an advertising company sells eyeballs. It seems like you're focusing on connotations of terminology, but rephrasing what Google or NBC does doesn't change what it is they do: selling eyeballs. Why do you think Super Bowl spots are so expensive?

Maybe this clashes with the image you have of Google as a benevolent group of engineers who just want to make the world a better place. Certainly, a company can be comprised of employees who care about technology but also rely on a business model that might be cynically criticized or, at the least, described in a way that may not appear as benevolent as you previously thought.

However, that wasn't even my intent. I was just being concise.

I can appreciate conciseness. And I agree that you were being concise. I also agree that I am focusing on the connotations of the words you used. That's the thing about FUD: usually the words are technically accurate. But the connotation ensures that a deeper, scarier message is conveyed.

I do take you at your word though that it was not your intention. Take this discussion then as a warning that your statement may not have come off as you intended it to.

It is not FUD to point out that a company sells eyeballs. If you had said "Google sells users' eyeballs to its customers: advertisers" you would have received no complaint from me. Adding that single word, "eyeballs", entirely clarifies your statement. Without it, people will need to fill in something else since we all know Google isn't literally selling its users to advertisers. A lot of people will interpret your statement as "Google sells users' personal information to its customers: advertisers."

Leaving out the clarification made it seem as though you wanted to allow the reader to draw a more frightening conclusion about Google's business model than is justified by reality.

Anyway I think we both agree. I have friends at Google, but they are in ad sales and HR not engineering. So I certainly don't think of Google as merely a "benevolent group of engineers." I have no problem calling out their business model for what it is. But accuracy and precision is important, especially when being concise.

I hold the same opinion so I can answer for myself - Mainly I judge them by their actions and it seems obvious to me that Google is working against the anonymous Internet. They seem to want to tag and track everyone with a real name and they force you sign in to save important settings on many of their services.

They just seem to want all of your data on their servers all of the time. I don't like it and I actively work against it.

I can see why you would think that Google is working against anonymous use of Google services. But to say that they are working against the "anonymous internet" is a stretch, unless you believe Google to make up the majority of the internet.

Honest question: what actions have they taken that make you believe they are working against the anonymous internet, outside of Google services?

Speaking for myself here, but many of the reasons Google is so bad for privacy isn't necessarily because of something Google did themselves. There are very few websites on the internet that don't have some form of Google tracking device on them (analytics, ad-sense, jquery loaded from a Google domain, etc).

Any one company having access to such a big database of information about pretty much everyone that has ever used a web browser should never happen, but it happens at Google.

It's not really a stretch because they don't want you to use the Internet without using Google. That's why they prompt you to immediately sign into Google with their browser and their mobile OS. Narrowing the argument to only what they do outside of their own properties is missing the point in my opinion because their properties are so vast.

Like I said, I can really only judge them by what I see - but here is my full disclosure - I honestly believe that in all probability...Google is working very closely with at least one despicable intelligence agency (most likely the NSA). I can't prove it, but if I could those agencies just wouldn't be worth their salt. It's certainly not outside the realm of possibility. Far from it.

Illustrated (comic): http://mattputtz.com/google-is-big-brother/

Note that Mozilla wasn't #1 on the list. They were just added to the list (at #20). Amex is #1.

http://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/2012%20MTC%20Report...

Mozilla is the #1 in the internet/social media industry. See page 7. Unsurprisingly, the industry as a whole ranks last out of the 25 industries in the list.

Actually this is really surprising, considering a lot of the companies/industries ranked above it are much worse at privacy, just much better at the snow job of hiding it.

Taking banking, ranked #3, which has a lot of companies (well, basically all of them) that not only sell all of your transaction info/etc, you can't opt out, and it isn't very anonymized.

Look at https://www.bankofamerica.com/privacy/consumer-privacy-notic...

for an example.

At least with most internet companies, you can opt out if you like, and most internet companies do not share with affiliates. It's not like Facebook is selling your social data to advertisers directly, instead it's selling the ability to show ads to people like you.

This is a far cry from "hey, want records of what dannyb bought in the last month with his BoA account so you can market better? Here you go!"

Also Amazon is place 3, I find that rather dishonest from Mozilla.

The irony is that Firefox is by far the least secure current browser (after Chrome, then probably Safari and IE10 for various reasons, then Firefox).

Erm - why exactly? Sources?

I think most of the others have JS sandboxing, but FF doesn't.

Along with key pinning, general effort put into security by google (fixing webkit fixes safari for free, etc.)

Mozilla is doing awesome stuff for privacy (persona is a great idea and if it displaces FB connect is a huge win for privacy), but is slacking on security by comparison.

What a joke. If any browser vendor really gave a fuck about privacy it would simply not be a problem anymore at all.

It's certainly not worthy to have to deceive your way to the top of a list that exists because of how little privacy really matters to browser vendors.

How would this happen like you say?

Browsers stop accepting third party cookies & scripts, block ads, disable localStorage, etc?

It'd be the browser that no one would use, because half the sites on the 'net wouldn't work.

Like many big problems, the solution is a lot more nuanced than you suggest. It involves browsers having more stringent defaults, website makers caring more (altruistically or by legislation) and consumers caring more.

They fight off viruses, malware, exploits, etc so I think mostly we should consider this a classification problem only from where we sit.

Most of the net works too - AdBlock, NoScript and Ghostery wouldn't be amongst the most popular extensions on multiple browsers if they had many negative consequences.

What else do you think Firefox should do to protect your privacy?

They should consider the leak of PII (outside of form fields) a vulnerability and treat companies that circumvent their efforts as hostile.

The same report lists the NRA as the most trusted non-profit. Not exactly the ringing endorsement the Mozilla's blog makes it out to be.

However, Mozilla should get some branding kudos for having enough people associate privacy and trustworthiness with the Mozilla brand.

I open up the study and find the following:

American Express (AMEX) continues to reign as the most trusted company for privacy among 217 organizations rated in our most trusted companies list. New entrants to this year’s top 20 most trusted list includes: Microsoft (ranked 17), United Healthcare (ranked 18) and Mozilla (ranked 20).

So not exactly the "Most Trusted Internet Company for Privacy" given they were ranked 20th and AMEX was ranked first.

Source: http://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/2012%20MTC%20Report...

American Express was in a different category than Mozilla. American Express was first over all categories, yeah.

(The survey and categories are a bit weird, no argument there.)

Yeh for anyone who has a website, Mozilla Persona is a great method for users to login

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/persona/

you can see it action when you login (4th option presented) to http://ebookoid.com/

I'll buy that. They have no ulterior motive to collect personal data and they have been very vocal on privacy issues.

From the study:

Note: The eCommerce subgroup consists of Internet retainers (merchants). All other Internet companies are contained in the Internet & Social Media subgroup.

Otherwise, Amazon beats out Mozilla handily.

Being the most trusted internet company for privacy is like being the branch of the sewer with the fewest disease-carrying rats. Sure, you're the best of the bunch, but how much does that really say?

haha privacy. then why when I type about:config in FF and search for google plenty of spying comes up.

I see safe browsing and default search related settings. Why would this be surprising?

For what it's worth, security & software guy Steve Gibson uses the Firefox browser.

I understand why, but it's ironic to see that the article's domain is "mozilla.org".

For the Dutch people around here: "Wij van WC-eend..." :)

Why is it ironic?

Parent is saying ACME has the best products, according to ACME. I, for one, don't click such articles as they're usually biased to favour the authors. Checks real quick In this case, Mozilla really ranked #20 but were #1 in their category of just 12. The article reeks of exploding just one tiny bullet point in a report which appears not to have been reviewed much outside of Ponemon Institute LLC except for the fine commentary here on HN.

(See http://search.cpan.org/~chromatic/Acme-Incorporated-1.00/lib... )

Congrats to Mozilla but honestly, I wonder when they implement Retina support, Web Audio API and other goodies (or must-haves) Chrome and Safari have for years. It's hard to use such a browser in 2013.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com