There's the tragedy with this new feature: they fast-tracked this past more popular requests, sticking it into Release Firefox.
But they only rushed the part that connects to third parties. There was also a "localhost" option which was originally alongside the Big Five corporate offerings, but Mozilla ultimately decided to bury that one inside of the about:config settings.
It is a sidebar that sends a query from your browser directly to a server run by a giant corporation like Google or OpenAI, consumes an excessive amount of carbon/water, then sends a response back to you that may or may not be true (because AI is incapable of doing anything but generating what it thinks you want to see).
Not only is it unethical in my opinion, it's also ridiculously rudimentary...
Wow. Just over two years ago, this was only a security issue. Now Google is actively exploiting it to make it a privacy issue too. (Okay, Google could have been quietly exploiting it this whole time.)
TikTok's In-App Browser Includes Code That Can Monitor Your Keystrokes, Researcher Says
There are a few good points in that response and a few I don't. They also concede a couple points, and complain about somebody who reposted that article (but not the original author I linked, thankfully).
To address your question: For example, sure, maybe Google does cache data but...
- It's probably better to have data in two places deleted from one place (Lemmy) instead of neither place
- Google allows you to specifically request removal of caches anyway
- Canonizing deletion of data probably has legal and tech benefits. (I'm not a lawyer, but deletion after a reasonable retention rate probably will help server administrators more than it hurts them, and it certainly helps the users.)
That's actually very boilerplate and tame compared to what Lemmy actually does with your data...
Hey, it's been a few weeks. Guess whether Mozilla has updated their privacy policy yet!
It's very clear what they say on their corporate website, right?
Set up a new email on Gmail or Proton Mail
Two words. They could have removed two words and made the instructions infinitely better.
And this is on the web page where, if you tap on it three times, it instantly exits out and goes to DuckDuckGo. Which is pretty neat.
I don't think you have to worry too much about Mozilla running out of money. Right now, they're spending it like there's no tomorrow.
CEO salary: Mitchell Baker's salary jumped by millions of dollars while Firefox browser market share slumped.
Shopping spree: Mozilla purchased two brand new AdTech corporations in the last year or so:
- One of them serves up ads through Firefox on shopping websites and sells your browsing/location history.
- The other works with corporations like TikTok (and at least two more of the top 10 most popular social networks) to analyze their traffic.
Throwing cash around: If wasn't enough, Mozilla has earmarked $30 million for AI research grants, and another $30 million for random venture capital.
So in general, even if you could to donate directly to the development of Firefox, I think Mozilla should get its financial house in order before you do. (But you cannot donate to the development of Firefox, which is another reason you might want to consider withholding any donations.)
I like this post and the style of writing, but there's no way on earth this is "easy" to the average, non-technically-minded person. Never mind trying to convince the average Boomer or Gen X-er to follow these steps, it might exhaust a lot of privacy advocates or other people in technical fields. Heck, I've seen technically proficient people complain about the complexities of getting Matrix/Element encryption to work, and by comparison, that's practically a walk in the park.
(I was originally going to make a slightly more conciliatory comment, but then I realized you were not the OP of the original content. I appreciate the transfer of knowledge to the clearer web.)
Either you die young or you live long enough to turn into the Blink engine.
Mozilla Foundation lays off 30% staff, drops advocacy division
This is the second layoff at Mozilla this year, the first affecting dozens of staff on the side of the organization that builds the popular Firefox browser.
The fact that the United States intentionally makes these zones really subverts the conspiracy theory that the government is using 5G to control our minds (or whatever the theorists say these days).
My thought's exactly. It doesn't look perfect, but it's the first time anybody is seeing this on a nightly release. I've had my issues with Firefox, but they're really cooking right now.
This looks promising. Some of it is half-cooked, but the developers are soliciting feedback and actually responding to it there.
The dropdown should only be visible when the search bar is focused or the new tab / blank page is open
There is work being done to implement that behaviour
Back to the post, Mozilla also poses this question...
How Does This Benefit You?
...before providing some great answers. It's good to see Mozilla still knows its target audience(s) and is still capable of communicating with them.
I would have loved if they had released an anniversary icon for FF.
You might have seen it already, but is this close enough?
More like a vasectomy.
Some Bitwarden and Firefox Nightly users recently pressed Ctrl+Shift+L and discovered that instead of logging them into their various websites, Firefox enabled Firefox's AI chatbot.
You posted a privately sent email that contradicts a publicly accessible privacy policy. In the four weeks it took them to send that to you, nothing has been changed, same as the prior year. And they couldn't even bother to spell their own product name right.
Do you acknowledge that the privacy policy makes it extremely clear that they do sell private data, as outlined in the table that they made for people who struggle to read and mentally parse full paragraphs of text?
What an email to read. I find it particularly valuable for the things it does not say, but not at all encouraging.
We are in the process of updating our privacy policy for additional clarity on all the points referenced in your email.
They don't say the TOS is incorrect or too broad. And they don't say they will remove their promise to sell private data to advertisers.
At this time, Fakespot does not sell or share any user data pursuant to any applicable privacy laws.
At this time? Pursuant to the law? If Mozilla is abiding by law and nothing more, that explains why they are legally forced to admit they sell private data to advertisers.
And the law is the lowest bar imaginable. Google operates under the law. Is Mozilla not better than them?
... service providers who make Faksepot run...
...and they can't spell their own name right.
I got a similar ban from that community after the moderator started spouting conspiracy theories at me and I didn't agree with them. I noticed they removed most of my comments in that thread, but not all of them... Not sure if it was accidental, but the ones with non-negative karma were the ones that got removed.
This is also how I discovered a moderator that bans you from their community effectively prevents you from deleting any of your posts in it, which makes me feel... Uncertain about the ML mods having such control over the stuff its users post.
I thought some worked by flashing infrared LEDs to overwhelm the cameras' sensors. AFAIK there are multiple varieties of camera repellant.
after many months, and being blocked by more and more external servers, it is clear that image proxying is seriously degrading the user experience
By "external servers," does that mean external to the Lemmy network itself?
I'm interested how Mastodon handles this, since it is a much more active social network that also encourages media sharing.
Mozilla encourages Gavin Newsom to veto popular AI regulation bill
Context
Senate Bill (SB) 1047 is legislation proposed by Senator Scott Wiener for regulating AI models that cost over $100 million to train. The bill was designed to hold AI companies accountable for potential damages caused by their models.
It gained widespread support from the population of California and a broad coalition of labor unions, AI safety advocates, Hollywood figures, and current and ex-employees of AI megacorporations.
However, many giant corporations including Google, Amazon, Meta, and OpenAI opposed the bill, asking Gavin Newsom to veto it.
Mozilla's statement
On August 29, Mozilla joined the corporations to endorse a veto, publishing its own statement:
>Mozilla is a champion for both openness and trustworthiness in AI, and we are deeply >concerned that SB 1047 would imperil both of those objectives. For over 25 years, Mozilla has >fought Big Tech to make the Internet better, creating an open source browser that challenged >incumbents and raised the bar on privacy, security, and functionality for everyone in line with our manifesto. > >Today, we see parallels to the early Internet in the AI ecosystem, which has also become >increasingly closed and consolidated in the hands of a few large, tech companies. >We are concerned that SB 1047 would further this trend, harming the open-source community and >making AI less safe — not more. > >Mozilla has engaged with Senator Wiener's team on the legislation; we appreciate the Senator’s >collaboration, along with many of the positive changes made throughout the legislative process. >However, we continue to be concerned about key provisions likely to have serious >repercussions. For instance, provisions like those that grant the Board of Frontier Models >oversight of computing thresholds without statutory requirements for updating thresholds as AI proves safe will likely harm the open-source AI community and the startups, small businesses, >researchers, and academic communities that utilize open-source AI. > >As the bill heads to the Governor’s desk, we ask that Governor Newsom consider the serious >harm this bill may do to the open source ecosystem and pursue alternatives that address >concrete AI risks to ensure a better AI future for all.
Source: Mozilla (PDF).
Gavin Newsom vetoed this bill on September 29th.
2022 throwback: Mozilla pauses crypto donations following criticism over climate impact
After announcing that it would accept cryptocurrency donations last week, the Mozilla Foundation has put them on hold following critical comments.
Mozilla removes uBlock Origin Lite from Addon store. Developer stops developing Lite for Firefox; "it's worrisome what could happen to uBO in the future."
Mozilla recently removed every version of uBlock Origin Lite from their add-on store except for the oldest version.
Mozilla says a manual review flagged these issues:
> Consent, specifically Nonexistent: For add-ons that collect or transmit user data, the user must be informed... > > Your add-on contains minified, concatenated or otherwise machine-generated code. You need to provide the original sources...
uBlock Origin's developer gorhill refutes this with linked evidence.
> Contrary to what these emails suggest, the source code files highlighted in the email: > > * Have nothing to do with data collection, there is no such thing anywhere in uBOL > * There is no minified code in uBOL, and certainly none in the supposed faulty files
Even for people who did not prefer this add-on, the removal could have a chilling effect on uBlock Origin itself.
> Incidentally, all the files reported as having issues are exactly the same files being used in uBO for years, and have been used in uBOL as well for over a year with no modification. Given this, it's worrisome what could happen to uBO in the future.
And gorhill notes uBO Lite had a purpose on Firefox, especially on mobile devices:
> [T]here were people who preferred the Lite approach of uBOL, which was designed from the ground up to be an efficient suspendable extension, thus a good match for Firefox for Android.
New releases of uBO Lite do not have a Firefox extension; the last version of this coincides with gorhill's message. The Firefox addon page for uBO Lite is also gone.
Mozilla has fired Chief Product Officer Steve Teixeira after cancer diagnosis
With just a few days’ notice, Mozilla terminated my employment this month after leaving me hanging on leave without explanation for several months. My discrimination case against them therefore enters a new phase after this wrongful termination. https://mastodon.social/@stevetex/112780506720122370
sigh
Mozilla and Gary Vee fund cryptocurrency company Webacy
Investors included entrepreneur Gary Vaynerchuk and Mozilla Ventures.
Gary Vee is a notorious grifter NFT salesman with a checkered past.
Webacy is a cryptocurrency wallet "technology layer" that "provides security features" like password backup, "digital wills", etc.
Throwback: 2019 Mozilla-affiliated group asks how to build a queerer CreepAI: a "non-committal sexting bot" emerges.
This session is facilitated by Emily Martinez, Ben Lerchin Show on schedule About this session Come interact with the first iteration of Queer AI, a conversational chatbot trained on queer literature. The bot currently engages in a variety of conversations around intimacy and relationships, but we...
On Valentine's Day 2024, Mozilla came out with a piece critical of AI chatbots titled "Creepy.exe: Mozilla Urges Public to Swipe Left on Romantic AI Chatbots Due to Major Privacy Red Flags."
But before they found red flags, back in 2019, Mozilla promoted a workshop on a creepy, rainbow-washed, chatbot ecosystem where people identified as "queer" were required to bare their most intimate sexual thoughts.
From the post:
> your... interactions will be recorded... you will occasionally be prompted with random survey questions
What kinds of questions did they randomly ask the people who would "queer the AI"? Creepy stuff like
> Have you ever sexted with a stranger? > Have you ever sexted with a machine? > Do you remember the first time you were aroused by language? > Do you think an artificial intelligence could help fulfill some of these... needs?
The workshop providers guided people into establishing an intimate, sexual connection with the chatbot they could create.
> How might we build trust with an AI? > How might we give it its own sense of desire?
Even the consenting participants in the workshop complained about the AI's creep factor:
> it feels like the A.I. is gas-lighting you. > Seems like a noncommittal sexting bot. It should at least be clear about what it’s trying to do.
The startup that Mozilla fostered for this panel ended up crashing and burning, but its creepier, worse brethren live on inside of Firefox 130, displayed as first-class options within Mozilla's chatbot options. I just thought it would be fun to take a trip down memory lane to see how many creepy red flags AI companies could get within Mozilla's view without ever concerning them.
Mozilla warns of AI, privacy violations, loss of consent, and eco-unfriendly tech fads
Now that Google and Microsoft each consume more power than some fairly big countries, maybe it's time for 2024 Mozilla to take heed of 2021 Mozilla's warnings.
Mozilla CPO Steve Teixeira is suing Mozilla for discrimination
There seems to be minimal information about this online, so I'm leaving this here so cooler heads can prevail in discussion.
Link to filing: https://archive.org/details/jyjfub
Notable portions:
Teixeira was hired as Chief Product Officer and was in line to become CEO.
> Mr. Teixeira became Chief Product Officer (“CPO”) of Mozilla in August, 2022. During the hiring process, Mr. Teixeira had conversations with executive recruiting firm, Russell Reynolds Associates, that one of Mozilla Corporation’s hiring criteria for the CPO role was an executive that could succeed Mitchell Baker as CEO. > > Also, shortly after being hired, Mr. Teixeira had conversations with Ms. Baker about being positioned as her successor.
After taking medical leave to deal with cancer, Mozilla swiftly moved to replace CEO Mitchell Baker with someone else.
> Shortly before Mr. Teixeira returned from leave, Mozilla board member Laura Chambers was appointed Interim CEO of Mozilla and Ms. Baker was removed as CEO and became Executive Chair of the Board of Directors.
After returning, Teixeira was ordered to lay off 50 preselected employees, and he objected due to Mozilla not needing to cut them and their disproportionate minority status.
> In a meeting with Human Resources Business Partner Joni Cassidy, Mr. Teixeira discussed his concern that people from groups underrepresented in technology, like female leaders and persons of color, were disproportionately impacted by the layoff. > >... Ms. Chehak verbally reprimanded Mr. Teixeira, accusing him of violating [a] non-existent “onboarding plan” and threatening to place Mr. Teixeira back on medical leave if he did not execute the layoffs as instructed.
Mozilla's lack of inclusivity was a known problem
>In February 2022, Mozilla commissioned the firm of Tiangay Kemokai Law, P.C. to assess its performance in providing a diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplace culture. > > The report delivered in 2023 from Tiangay Kemokai Law, P.C. states in part: “MoCo falls into the Cultural Incapacity category based on leadership’s inadequate response to the needs of a diverse culture or else the need to create a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive culture, which is reflected in current systems, processes and procedures, policies and practices, or the lack thereof, and are incongruent with MoCo’s stated values and goals.”
Steve Teixeira has been put on leave.
> On May 23, 2024, Mozilla placed Mr. Teixeira on administrative leave. > > Mr. Teixeira requested a reason for being placed on administrative leave. > >Mozilla did not provide Mr. Teixeira with a reason why he was placed on administrative leave. > >Mozilla cut off Mr. Teixeira’s access to email, Slack messaging, and other Mozilla systems. > >Mozilla instructed employees not to communicate with Mr. Teixeira about work-related matters. > >Upon information and belief, an investigation into Mr. Teixeira’s allegations was finally conducted in late May 2024, but Mozilla did not do so under its internal policies and procedures regarding managing complaints of discrimination. Mr. Teixeira was not contacted to participate in the investigation into his complaint of unlawful treatment.
Coverage online so far
I say "alleged" because there appears to be no consensus on the veracity of this document.
Update: this appears to be confirmed.
This has received no "news" coverage besides one angry loudmouth (Bryan Lunduke) whose entire commentary career has been shaped by his political beliefs, regardless of truth.
Firefox Android Beta vs Nightly - new "Suggestions from the Web" and "Sponsored Suggestions"?
I recently downloaded Firefox Nightly and noticed some new settings that were enabled by default:
> * Suggestions from Firefox Nightly Get suggestions from the web related to your search > * Suggestions from sponsors Support Firefox Nightly with occasional sponsored suggestions > > Learn more about Firefox Suggest
The link in the UI doesn't mention sponsorships anywhere. But this page does:
> Who are Mozilla’s partners for sponsored suggestions? > >We partner with organizations to serve up some of these suggestion types... For sponsored results, we primarily work with adMarketplace, while also providing non-sponsored results from Wikipedia.
This page links to the adMarketplace Privacy Policy which makes it pretty clear this company is okay with collecting your IP address and passing it to further unnamed entities.
Elsewhere, they say Firefox sends them "the number of times Firefox suggests or displays specific content and your clicks on that content, as well as basic data about your interactions with Firefox Suggest", and then will share interaction information "in an aggregate manner with our partners".
-----------------
Update: Switched the link from the Desktop to the Mobile version. Added more quotes from FF, and bolded info about their one named AdTech partner.
deleted
Use code zoebee at https://incogni.com/zoebee to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan!Public education is under attack, and it feels like the atta...
deleted
Personally, I think Netflix was a relatively tactful in this particular instance, but it's a stark reminder of the sort of privacy we swear away when using social media or any service that sees our face.
Firefox's new FakeSpot integration: the privacy problems
Today, when I navigated to amazon\.com on Firefox for Android, I received a jarring message that I could "try" a new service, Fakespot, on the app.
Fakespot is littered with privacy issues.
Among other things, FakeSpot/Mozilla was forced to admit: "We sell and share your personal information"
Fakespot's privacy policy allows them to store and/or sell:
- Your email address
- Your IP address
- "Protected chacteristics" ie gender, sexuality, race...
- Data scraped from across the web
- Account IDs
- Things you bought (This is sold to advertisers)
- Things you considered buying (This is sold to advertisers)
- Your precise location (This is sold to advertisers)
- Inferences about you (This is sold to advertisers)
Right before Mozilla acquired them, Fakespot updated their privacy policy to allow transfer of private data to any company that acquired them. (Previous Privacy Policy here. Search "merge" in both.)
People donate to Mozilla because they believe in the company's stated goals. Why were the donations put into an acquisition of a company with this kind of privacy policy? And why has Mozilla focused on bundling it as bloat into their browser? Now that Brave is in hot water for becoming bloated, Mozilla should buck the trend, not follow it.
deleted
Today, when I navigated to amazon.com on Firefox for Android, I received a jarring message [https://i.imgur.com/fp2pigl.png] that I could “try” a new service, Fakespot, on the app. What’s Fakespot? A review-checking, scammer-spotting service Fakespot for Firefox [https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023...
Today, when I navigated to amazon\.com on Firefox for Android, I received a jarring message that I could "try" a new service, Fakespot, on the app.
What's Fakespot? A "review-checking, scammer-spotting service for Firefox."
Among other things, FakeSpot/Mozilla was forced to admit: "We sell and share your personal information"
Fakespot's privacy policy allows them to collect and sell:
- Your email address
- Your IP address
- Account IDs
- A list of things you purchased and considered purchasing
- Your precise location (which will be sent to advertising partners)
- Data about you publicly available on the web
- Your curated profile (which will also be sent to advertising providers)
Right before Mozilla acquired them, Fakespot updated their privacy policy to allow transfer of private data to any company that acquired them. (Previous Privacy Policy here. Search "merge" in both.)
Who asked for this? Who demanded integration into Firefox, since it was already a (relatively unpopular) browser extension people could have used instead?