STOCKHOLM, Sept 25 (Reuters) - Vienna-based advocacy group NOYB on Wednesday said it has filed a complaint with the Austrian data protection authority against Mozilla accusing the Firefox browser maker of tracking user behaviour on websites without consent.

NOYB (None Of Your Business), the digital rights group founded by privacy activist Max Schrems, said Mozilla has enabled a so-called “privacy preserving attribution” feature that turned the browser into a tracking tool for websites without directly telling its users.

Mozilla had defended the feature, saying it wanted to help websites understand how their ads perform without collecting data about individual people. By offering what it called a non-invasive alternative to cross-site tracking, it hoped to significantly reduce collecting individual information.

  • lattrommi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    124
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    1 month ago

    All the naysayers in these comments read like shills and if they aren’t, they really should read how the tracking in question works. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution?as=u&utm_source=inproduct

    While it was kinda lame for Mozilla to add it with it already opted-in the way they did, they were still completely open about how it works from the start with a link right next to the feature in settings (the same link pasted above) and it’s far less invasive than the other mainstream browsers.

    It can be turned off too, easily. It requires unchecking a checkbox. No jumping through 10 different menus trying to figure out how to turn it off, like a certain other browser does with its monstrous tracking and data collection machine.

    With ublock origin it’s also moot, since ublock origin blocks all the ads anyways.

    Call me a fanboy if you want, I wont care. Firefox is still the superior browser in my opinion.

    • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think a big part of the problem is that they didn’t show anyone a notification or an onboarding dialog or whatever about this feature, when it got introduced.

      Firefox is still the superior browser in my opinion.

      or the least bad, as I have been thinking about it lately

    • ludicolo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Nah. Turning that feature on by default already set in stone for me their willingness to test the waters. If you don’t think auto-enabling anti-privacy features is a problem I don’t know what to tell you. It may be “small” right now, but just wait and see what else they will try to sneak in.

      Use Librewolf and Mull instead.

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Use Librewolf and Mull instead.

        And keep an eye on the Ladybird browser, eventually FF forks will die should FF go full-tilt enshittification, but hopefully not till Ladybird is fully ready

    • sylver_dragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 month ago

      While it was kinda lame for Mozilla to add it with it already opted-in the way they did

      That’s really the rub here. Reading the technical explainer on the project, it’s a pretty good idea. The problem is that they came down on the side of “more data” versus respecting their users:

      Having this enabled for more people ensures that there are more people contributing to aggregates, which in turn improves utility. Having this on by default both demands stronger privacy protections — primarily smaller epsilon values and more noise — but it also enables those stronger protections, because there are more people participating. In effect, people are hiding in a larger crowd.

      In short, they pulled a “trust us, bro” and turned an experimental tracking system on by default. They fully deserve to be taken to task over this.

      • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 month ago

        The answer will always from now on be ‘yes’, for every annoying privacy invading toggle you have to change, it is in the best interest of the software creators to force you to do it in the way that benefits them most.

        Our opinions are no longer as important as their ability to harvest our data.

        • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Our opinions are no longer as important as their ability to harvest our data.

          Either you control your hardware and software OR some parasite does.

          Your choice folks

          • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 month ago

            Ok I’ll just go grab some sand and refine it into silicon then bake my own chips then code my own kernel and OS and applications because that’s the only way to ‘control’ it.

            Companies need to be held to regulatory standards about our private data, and the ONLY reason those regulations don’t exist is because every FUCKDAMN politician in the world was born before TV had color

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      This is just the beginnings of the enshittification of FF. There are others out there, Ladybird for example, deserves our attention being built completely from scratch engine and all. Though it’s not slated to become fully usable until 2026 because, they’re building the engine from scratch lol

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      All the naysayers in these comments read like shills

      Amusing people of what you are guilty of. Sounds familiar…

    • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      Pest vs Cholera situation here…
      Firefox should do an opt-in and they usually open new page with major updates with a pretty whats new changelog.
      Just make it a headline topic ffs.

      Regarding it’s just clicking this one textbox:
      Remember: Businesses also use Firefox. If you want to protect even a shred of your co-workers or clients you need to set up a fuck-load of tools to mass-disable this one little checkbox.

    • Obinice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      If it’s added as already opted in, I assume they pop something up to make it clear what’s been added and enabled, and how it affects the user’s privacy, with a link to the settings to change it if desired?

      If so, that’s not too bad, no.

      If they added it and didn’t make it clear, or worse yet didn’t call attention to it at all, that would piss me off.

      • lattrommi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        They didn’t, just like every other mainstream browser does. It was pretty lame. It was in the change notes but I don’t know too many people that read those anymore. Their explanation of the system and the ease to turn it off placated me. I have the feature on and have had it on since the day it was released.

    • Engywuck@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Call me a fanboy if you want,

      I will.

      It can be turned off too, easily.

      Same for Chrome.

      With ublock origin it’s also moot, since ublock origin blocks all the ads anyways.

      This is a non-argument; uBO ins’t even developed by Mozilla, so they don’t deserve credit for it.