I think Mozilla needs to do a better job explaining why there is "no tracking involved in delivering Tiles". They now just state that, with no information on how it's implemented, and people will get scared if they don't hear specifics. I can imagine this being implemented without tracking, by simply downloading all advertisements and doing the ad selection on the client. The ad may then of course not 'phone home'.
They also state that if you have Do Not Track enabled, these new tiles will be disabled "as we believe that most DNT early adopters are seeking to opt out of all advertising experiences". You can also opt out of them by using the cog at the new tab screen.
I had nothing against the sponsoring in the new tab screen but this is a bit different. There is so much potential for backfire if they don't do it properly. But at the end, how is that different from Google who is also putting ads by analyzing your entire web history. The main problem is that it's quite hard to finance their business, they are trying to do new stuff in every direction to depend less on Google (new search partners, Read-it-later, Firefox OS...) but it's not an easy task.
We're trying to create a new way for ads to be targeted.
In the classical model, the server tracks wherever you've been on the internet.
Basically, to show you relevant ads, at least one entity needs to know where you've been.
What we're trying to achieve is similar, except there is no tracking. Most of the decisioning (e.g. which sites similar to the target group have you been on before?) is made in Firefox.
The ad server will send many ads based on a user's geo (as determined by IP address) and locale (browser language, e.g. en-US). This package will include more Tiles (some are sponsored, some are not) than Firefox will decide to show.
While we do get data based on the impressions and other interactions with the Tile, we only get the strict minimum needed to compute our counts.
And on the topic of IP addresses, we consider that sensitive information. We only keep the raw data for a very short while (7 days).
The only thing that is kept for longer is the aggregate data, e.g. how many impressions tile X did on day Y.
Good. Non-profits with proven track records such as Mozilla are the only entities I trust to run an ethical ad network. While I care about privacy and have ghostery, ublock and eff privacy badger installed, I'll be making an exception for Mozilla.
As usual, I am disappointed with the HN hive-mind myopia regarding web ads, privacy and non-profits efforts to compete.
Also, Mozilla is respecting Do Not Track setting of Firefox users:
"* Note: if you set DNT=1, it is possible that you may not be receiving Suggested Tiles. You can very simply enable them on the new tab page with the cogwheel. We made the decision to opt users out of all sponsored Tiles experiences if they have DNT=1 quite early on, as we believe that most DNT early adopters are seeking to opt out of all advertising experiences. However, it’s important to understand that no tracking is involved in delivering Tiles."
You can look at it thisway -- Firefox was funding it's own development by off-shoring it's ads to Google/Bing in exchange for funds. Maybe the world becomes better with Mozilla directly serving ads than it's partners.
Of course, I'll be going with the adblocked community version which will be released, with or without Mozilla's backing.
Key quote: "to summarize, Firefox makes generic encrypted cookieless requests to get enough data to decide locally in Firefox whether content should be added to the new tab page."
The problem is that nobody is funding Firefox and they need money to continue development.
If any of you "goodbye firefox" have a better idea feel free to speak up. Also, you can leave firefox for google, but it collects way more data anyway.
Maybe Microsoft Edge will be good so Windows users can just use default browser.
You're joking, right? Windows now phones home even with your "encryption" keys, Bing search is integrated into the start panel and you're somehow hoping that a still closed source IExplorer will better respect your privacy. My sarcasm detector must be malfunctioning.
FWIW, I work at Mozilla, but I don't work on this particular project. But, I care because I <3 the web.
What I think a lot of folks are missing here is that this is an attempt to change how ads are done. Whether you like it or not, ads are how most of the web gets funded right now.
Yes, funding Mozilla would be nice. Even better would be if ads on the web in general were less intrusive and better respected privacy.
One of the things this does not do is send your browsing history to remote servers. Instead, the remote server sends you a pile of ads roughly based on your location & language. The browser decides locally what to show. That's a big change, shifting the bulk of the sensitive stuff to your own computer instead of black boxes in the cloud.
This isn't just your usual "slap a banner on it" ad network used in all the free mobile apps. And, if the model works in the browser, it might work on the web too.
Why not go further and give the money earned with ads in firefox to the user. Who can then use this to directly buy webservices. This could also automaticly be brokered by the browser. This could make webservices a comodity and give back power to the user.
You could get personalize advertisements without collecting the data: the browser has your history, it made some kind of profiling (categorize you), and then it request advertisement for your profile.
Indeed, the whole point of this (and all the verbiage about "respecting user privacy") is that the browser will do the analysis locally without sending history data back to Mozilla.
It's not about where the processing happens or what data is actually transmitted, it's about them pulling this type of shit without clearly asking my permission. And it's not an excuse that Google and others are doing similar things. If you try to win users by publicly saying you're "fighting for privacy", you will be held against higher standards.
Mozilla failed really badly here and honestly I'm not sure if they can ever win back my trust after this. Even though I've read through the tech docs released and I know it's not like they are sending your history all over, it's the way they decided to do this that undermined all their efforts so far.
Could you be more specific about the particular aspects of the "way they decided to do this" that you are objecting to? As a privacy advocate, I can't see anything particuarly objectionable in their methodology.
Sigh. I was worried this would happen. I know Mozilla need to make money and with their market share shrinking that is getting harder but these kind of "features" put me off wanting to use Firefox all together. I would rather use Chromium over a version of Firefox with targeted advertising built in.
For now at least it looks like being able to disable it is still possible but I cannot find any mention if disabling this also disables the whole analysing my history bit?
There's no real analysis of your history, it's just selecting the top visited links (using existing code, which is used to show you the current tiles of visited sites).
I hate ads. I love Mozilla. I understand Mozilla needs the money. I don't mind supporting them with cash. Why not have a freemium option for folks to subscribe to Firefox and hide the ads?
Freemium wouldn't work. There will be unofficial builds available with this kind of stuff removed available for free within hours of the official release.
They could charge for services such as sync but again that is going to be difficult Chrome does it for free.
I think Mozilla need to seriously look at how they are spending their money as it seems to be pretty insane some of their outgoings.
I know they are trying to diverge from just being a browser with things like Firefox OS but we all know that isn't going to ever be a real competitor to iOS and Android. Even in developing nations I think people are more likely to go with a dirt cheap Windows Phone when Windows 10 is out over a Firefox phone. One thing Windows Phone does really well is run great on very low powered devices. I can't ever see Firefox OS getting above 0.x market share.
Perhaps Mozilla is just too big now? Do they need to scale back to save money? Can they survive on a donations alone?
I'd like to see a "Firefox subscription", a monthly automatic donation model like NPR and PBS use. Give people who "subscribe" a custom Firefox theme to show off that they're supporters (like KQED bumper stickers on Volvos ;).
Bad idea. I hate even the website icons from the new tab page. They sometimes show sites I don't want to advertise (xxx). They make "new tab" work slower and I never feel inclined to click on them.
Now they are trying to stuff even more slowness inducing ads in the new tab - that means - exactly the moment you wan to to something ELSE.
That's the problem - when you open a tab, you don't really want to see the ads. When you search on Google, you might want to see the ads.
Is there a project to make a decent browser that doesn't have any intention of making a profit or selling out its users, and has governance appropriate to make that a reality?
It seems like this is necessary. If I can contribute to that, pre-existing or not, I will start today.
There are 3 billion web users: between us we must have enough altruism and skill to compete with this.
Yeah, time to switch to Google Chrome. It's made by a party that will never collect personal data, certainly not make it their entire core business.
Oh wait...
Ok, serious mode. For years people have been complaining that Mozilla is too dependent on funding from Google. This is a way for Mozilla to fund itself without depending on Google. But that's not good either?
Maybe Mozilla should start nagging people for donations, Wikipedia-style? But that's not good either: lots of people complain about Wikipedia's yearly "begging" and say they would prefer to see ads instead.
The data is collected in the browser, same as it ever was. The history is not sent to Mozilla's servers - it's the browser that locally chooses and fetches the tiles.
The tiles are grouped based on multiple servers, so the fact that your browser requested a specific tile doesn't directly tell them which site you actually visited.
Well you know the saying. When something is free, you're the product.
Personally I don't mind. I love Firefox and the work they've done all these years and if that's the only way to keep them afloat then so be it. I just hope the implementation won't be too intrusive.
Couldn't iceweasel just change the default so the ads are not shown? It is free software and they already got experience to do changes to the code in order to change the name and icon.
[+] [-] Confiks|10 years ago|reply
I think Mozilla needs to do a better job explaining why there is "no tracking involved in delivering Tiles". They now just state that, with no information on how it's implemented, and people will get scared if they don't hear specifics. I can imagine this being implemented without tracking, by simply downloading all advertisements and doing the ad selection on the client. The ad may then of course not 'phone home'.
They also state that if you have Do Not Track enabled, these new tiles will be disabled "as we believe that most DNT early adopters are seeking to opt out of all advertising experiences". You can also opt out of them by using the cog at the new tab screen.
Still, I don't really like this development.
[+] [-] thristian|10 years ago|reply
https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/files/2015/05/How-...
For people who don't like infographics, there's also a textual description: https://blog.mozilla.org/privacy/2015/05/21/putting-our-data...
[+] [-] icebraining|10 years ago|reply
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1120311
[+] [-] realusername|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sayhello|10 years ago|reply
We're trying to create a new way for ads to be targeted. In the classical model, the server tracks wherever you've been on the internet.
Basically, to show you relevant ads, at least one entity needs to know where you've been.
What we're trying to achieve is similar, except there is no tracking. Most of the decisioning (e.g. which sites similar to the target group have you been on before?) is made in Firefox.
The ad server will send many ads based on a user's geo (as determined by IP address) and locale (browser language, e.g. en-US). This package will include more Tiles (some are sponsored, some are not) than Firefox will decide to show.
While we do get data based on the impressions and other interactions with the Tile, we only get the strict minimum needed to compute our counts.
And on the topic of IP addresses, we consider that sensitive information. We only keep the raw data for a very short while (7 days).
The only thing that is kept for longer is the aggregate data, e.g. how many impressions tile X did on day Y.
[+] [-] FooBarWidget|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vdaniuk|10 years ago|reply
As usual, I am disappointed with the HN hive-mind myopia regarding web ads, privacy and non-profits efforts to compete.
Also, Mozilla is respecting Do Not Track setting of Firefox users:
"* Note: if you set DNT=1, it is possible that you may not be receiving Suggested Tiles. You can very simply enable them on the new tab page with the cogwheel. We made the decision to opt users out of all sponsored Tiles experiences if they have DNT=1 quite early on, as we believe that most DNT early adopters are seeking to opt out of all advertising experiences. However, it’s important to understand that no tracking is involved in delivering Tiles."
[+] [-] anilgulecha|10 years ago|reply
Of course, I'll be going with the adblocked community version which will be released, with or without Mozilla's backing.
[+] [-] hsivonen|10 years ago|reply
Key quote: "to summarize, Firefox makes generic encrypted cookieless requests to get enough data to decide locally in Firefox whether content should be added to the new tab page."
[+] [-] romanovcode|10 years ago|reply
If any of you "goodbye firefox" have a better idea feel free to speak up. Also, you can leave firefox for google, but it collects way more data anyway.
Maybe Microsoft Edge will be good so Windows users can just use default browser.
[+] [-] bad_user|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheLogothete|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lmorchard|10 years ago|reply
What I think a lot of folks are missing here is that this is an attempt to change how ads are done. Whether you like it or not, ads are how most of the web gets funded right now.
Yes, funding Mozilla would be nice. Even better would be if ads on the web in general were less intrusive and better respected privacy.
One of the things this does not do is send your browsing history to remote servers. Instead, the remote server sends you a pile of ads roughly based on your location & language. The browser decides locally what to show. That's a big change, shifting the bulk of the sensitive stuff to your own computer instead of black boxes in the cloud.
This isn't just your usual "slap a banner on it" ad network used in all the free mobile apps. And, if the model works in the browser, it might work on the web too.
[+] [-] _up|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RobertoG|10 years ago|reply
You could get personalize advertisements without collecting the data: the browser has your history, it made some kind of profiling (categorize you), and then it request advertisement for your profile.
[+] [-] rfk|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kropotkinlives|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FooBarWidget|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kibibu|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rockdoe|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uzero|10 years ago|reply
Mozilla failed really badly here and honestly I'm not sure if they can ever win back my trust after this. Even though I've read through the tech docs released and I know it's not like they are sending your history all over, it's the way they decided to do this that undermined all their efforts so far.
[+] [-] RobAley|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kozukumi|10 years ago|reply
For now at least it looks like being able to disable it is still possible but I cannot find any mention if disabling this also disables the whole analysing my history bit?
[+] [-] icebraining|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raziel2p|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] binarymax|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kozukumi|10 years ago|reply
They could charge for services such as sync but again that is going to be difficult Chrome does it for free.
I think Mozilla need to seriously look at how they are spending their money as it seems to be pretty insane some of their outgoings.
I know they are trying to diverge from just being a browser with things like Firefox OS but we all know that isn't going to ever be a real competitor to iOS and Android. Even in developing nations I think people are more likely to go with a dirt cheap Windows Phone when Windows 10 is out over a Firefox phone. One thing Windows Phone does really well is run great on very low powered devices. I can't ever see Firefox OS getting above 0.x market share.
Perhaps Mozilla is just too big now? Do they need to scale back to save money? Can they survive on a donations alone?
[+] [-] icebraining|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cpeterso|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] visarga|10 years ago|reply
Now they are trying to stuff even more slowness inducing ads in the new tab - that means - exactly the moment you wan to to something ELSE.
That's the problem - when you open a tab, you don't really want to see the ads. When you search on Google, you might want to see the ads.
[+] [-] digitalzombie|10 years ago|reply
I love firefox and was the first few when netscape open Mozilla and I jumped on board and ditch IE5.
So far I trust Mozilla more so than Google or Microsoft on browser software.
[+] [-] learnstats2|10 years ago|reply
It seems like this is necessary. If I can contribute to that, pre-existing or not, I will start today.
There are 3 billion web users: between us we must have enough altruism and skill to compete with this.
[+] [-] icebraining|10 years ago|reply
http://surf.suckless.org/
[+] [-] nodata|10 years ago|reply
Edit: "We promise to put you first and never sell your personal data. What else do you want for the Web?" -- https://twitter.com/firefox/status/461550580729536512
Don't collect my personal data.
[+] [-] FooBarWidget|10 years ago|reply
Oh wait...
Ok, serious mode. For years people have been complaining that Mozilla is too dependent on funding from Google. This is a way for Mozilla to fund itself without depending on Google. But that's not good either?
Maybe Mozilla should start nagging people for donations, Wikipedia-style? But that's not good either: lots of people complain about Wikipedia's yearly "begging" and say they would prefer to see ads instead.
What would you have them do?
[+] [-] icebraining|10 years ago|reply
The tiles are grouped based on multiple servers, so the fact that your browser requested a specific tile doesn't directly tell them which site you actually visited.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1120311
[+] [-] elorant|10 years ago|reply
Personally I don't mind. I love Firefox and the work they've done all these years and if that's the only way to keep them afloat then so be it. I just hope the implementation won't be too intrusive.
[+] [-] nautical|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] impostervt|10 years ago|reply
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...
[+] [-] TheLoneWolfling|10 years ago|reply
I personally switched over to Pale Moon when the whole UI "update" happened, and it's looking more and more as though I made the right choice.
[+] [-] belorn|10 years ago|reply