Mozilla turning phorm??

[solitaire]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/19/firefox_data_snoop/

The Phorm bug is spreading. The idea of collecting a user's browsing history and flogging that data doesn't just appeal to ISPs. The Mozilla Foundation, the people behind the Firefox browser, want some of that action too.

The Foundation is officially a tax exempt non-profit - but still manages to pay its chairperson $500,000 a year. Executives last week confirmed they are working on a project referred to internally as "Data". This would gather anonymised data on a voluntary basis, and provide the analytical information for anyone who wanted it.

But recent history reminds us that "anonymised" data is anything but anonymous. Meanwhile, bugs in the bloated browser have blown supposedly "private" data wide open.

Mozilla claims Firefox has around 170m users, which means it has more users than the largest ISP outside China. So it's easy to see why the temptation is there.

"There are worlds of information about how people use the web that are locked up and not currently shared," tootles Mozilla CEO John Lilly.

But what's a non-profit web browser doing building in a data-gathering infrastructure? It would be creepy if we discovered say Nokia putting stealth recording equipment into its handsets. But this is creepier still.

Michael Arrington, who Nick Carr described as the "Madam of the Web 2.0 brothel", thinks it's a great idea.

"The potential is huge. Tell them in the comments below and on Lilly's blog how much you want this to happen," he urged in the Washington Post.

(You can't trust Web 2.0 evangelists with privacy, we've noted before. People forget that AOL's notorious data leak was not accidental, but intentional - a gift to the hive mind. For some network utopians, the biggest regret about the scandal was that we wouldn't see more such gifts.)

Cryptome puts it more succinctly - "Firefox Ponders Suicide". ®'08 El Reg

[agim]

Thanks for the info, I will have to look into it more.

[smoker]

if it is not something that can be 'unticked' during install, then i will find another browser, i may do that anyway!


[The Foundation is officially a tax exempt non-profit - but still manages to pay its chairperson $500,000 a year.
hmm, who says open source doesn't pay?

[solitaire]

I'm really not a huge fan of Opera but it might be the only one to go for!!

unless people know of others..???

[y-lee]

This is something absolutely not to be worried about at the moment. It is something mozilla is considering and if they implement this it will be something you can opt in or opt out of. See Mozilla, Firefox & Data (http://john.jubjubs.net/2008/05/13/mozilla-firefox-data/) and judging from the comments the public is not taking to well to the idea.

Whether it is implemented or not it is nothing to worry about. FF is the ultimate in customization and is open source, there WILL be an easy way to turn this tracking off if you so desire.

[doorknob60]

I'm sure that if this happened, then it would be easy to turn off or Debian's build (Iceweasel) would have it removed from the source before building :) Or I could use Konqueror.

[Tom Mann]

It's worth noting that you could also use Iceweasel, the GNU version of Firefox, with all the extras stripped out (Bug Tracker, Proprietary Artwork)

If this went into Firefox, you could bet your other half on Iceweasel removing it again.

[Dr Small]

If worst comes to worst, my next choice will be Kazehakase. I won't let them have my information.

[ice60]

I'm really not a huge fan of Opera but it might be the only one to go for!!

unless people know of others..???
i wrote some tips for opera if you decide to use it, there are 100s more things too i didn't put in.
http://suseforums.net/index.php?showtopic=46393

i'm using the beta atm because flash works with it, the normal version might not work with flash, i'm not sure though?? i check the site every week for updates.
http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/

[SunnyRabbiera]

I will use iceweasel if this happens.

[cardinals_fan]

I'm on Opera and very happy.

[vexorian]

Link to the register ... check.
Article blatantly misses the "voluntarily" word... check.
"Meanwhile, bugs in the bloated browser have blown supposedly "private" data wide open". ... check.

Tag it FUD, and you should be sorry for posting stuff from theregister.


I'm on Opera and very happy.
I eat pizza every once in a while, does anybody need another useless statement that contributes nothing to the discussion?

[solitaire]

Link to the register ... check.
Article blatantly misses the "voluntarily" word... check.
"Meanwhile, bugs in the bloated browser have blown supposedly "private" data wide open". ... check.

Tag it FUD, and you should be sorry for posting stuff from theregister.



It's called being informed :P

:D:D
But if you like sand then keep your head where it is... :D:lolflag:

[bikeboy]

Tag it FUD


And that about sums it up. Well said, nothing more to add.

[Theo148]

That article is absolute crap - there is no such data collection project in existence. About the closest thing to a project like that in Mozilla development is people discussing whether or not there is a way to experiment with developing such a feature without infringing on people's privacy. Hardly anything for even the most paranoid person to worry about.

Edit: See the post directly below

[jespdj]

The article is FUD.

See this clarification (http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/1fed1514e5c5dc64) from a Mozilla developer:

I'll be more clear, then:

- no, there is no secret data project.
- no, there is no secret plan to snoop or collect user data
- no, we are not already secretly collecting data
- yes, we are trying to figure out how we can accumulate better data about
how users are using their browsers, and what they're trying to accomplish;
as with everything we do, this starts with public discussion to make sure we
do it right in terms of respecting user privacy and our own community
ideals - that's what Lilly was saying.
- yes, any such program would be opt-in, not opt-out

Alex Polvi recently released a double-opt-in add-on (first you need install
it, then you need to turn it on) which collects clicksteam data to
understand what buttons are pressed most often in the UI. Even in this
add-on, Spectator, the data is double blinded and anonymized.

I know this is a touchy subject, and everyone is looking for a scoop, but
our record here is clear. We're open. We don't do things without talking
about them first. So we're talking about the goals and objectives and
constraints, and someone from TechCrunch decided to make a story out of it
and misrepresented the facts.

I hope this helps.

cheers,
mike

[Theo148]

:lolflag: That's the exact post I was trying to find and quote.

[nowshining]

soon it will happen with all browsers/internet, etc.. and soon the only way to protect ur freedom & rights are to die for them.

[Luke has no name]

Firefox is an open source project. Couldn't Iceweasel take over in the open-source world, modifying out the data-mining code (if present)?

[nowshining]

It's worth noting that you could also use Iceweasel, the GNU version of Firefox, with all the extras stripped out (Bug Tracker, Proprietary Artwork)

If this went into Firefox, you could bet your other half on Iceweasel removing it again.

thanks I might make the switch now.. :P (Bug Tracker, Proprietary Artwork) - i didn't know that. now I know..

[visionaire]

I'm a happy user of Opera :D

[Polygon]

the funny thing is people say they will migrate to opera which is a closed source browser and could for all we know do this exact same thing. But you wont ever find out for sure, cause its closed source.

[Luke has no name]

the funny thing is people say they will migrate to opera which is a closed source browser and could for all we know do this exact same thing. But you wont ever find out for sure, cause its closed source.

That, and Firefox is better.