Mozilla and Meta (Facebook) team up to invade your privacy - They're building even more spyware into Firefox

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Kola

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 27, 2024
Here's an experiment I found among Mozilla's recent explainers: https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experiment

This is a way for the jews to track you across different website and fix a big problem (from their perspective) where they don't know if watching their ads has any effect on you. This API makes it so that they will be able to tell, directly, that you saw an ad for product X, then bought that product.

Mozilla is working with Meta and other actors on defining an in-browser attribution API. The purpose of this API is to provide a privacy-first design for advertising companies to be able to measure how advertising drives conversions. That is, answering the question of whether advertising effectively achieves its goals, such as increased sales.

A "privacy-first" API that invades your privacy to let them track you more effectively

Users largely benefit indirectly from the use of this API. That’s a hard fact, but an important one.

Any benefit people derive from this feature is indirect. The sites they visit are often supported by advertising. Making advertising better makes it possible for more sites to function using the support that advertising provides.

So there are no benefits to you, and they know it, but they're still going to do it. Note that they're building it directly into the browser, wasting resources that could have went into making Firefox better.

The first point here is hard to measure objectively, but we have at least one example to draw on. Meta famously reported USD10 billion of losses as a result of Apple’s Ad Tracking Transparency feature, which resulted in them being unable to perform attribution for a sizable portion of iPhone users.

Oh no, when you're forced to ask the dumb goyim cattle for permission, turns out they don't want to be tracked. That is why this feature is opt-out, and enabled by default, so that most people won't even know it's there and will be tracked:

This feature will be enabled by default with an option to disable it.
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.
An opt-in approach might enable weaker privacy protections, but would not necessarily provide better data in exchange. Having more data means both better measurement accuracy and an ability to add more noise on a per-person basis, meaning better privacy.

You can read the whole thing, including the technical details, at the link I also pasted above:
 
If advertisers do not need to track people for attribution purposes, it makes it easier for us to identify and stop tracking.
Sorta sounds to me like it's "the end user's benefit is that advertisers will no longer be tracking them, since we'll simply harvest the data for the advertisers at a browser level and hand it directly to them"
Privacy loss from use of their information. Attribution information will be aggregated and will include noise that protects the contribution that each person makes. This design is structured so that advertisers learn about what many people do as a group, not what any single person does.
Meta famously reported USD10 billion of losses as a result of Apple’s Ad Tracking Transparency feature, which resulted in them being unable to perform attribution for a sizable portion of iPhone users.
So I'm guessing Zucc is paying Mozilla to do this? It sounds like this is just Mozilla openly admitting to implementing browser-level data harvesting to provide data to Meta?

edit:
Reading more into this, maybe not? It just sounds like it's an API to tell advertisers what sites their ads are clicked/viewed from, to know what sites to pay out; which they say is currently done with aggressive tracking cookies.
Not exactly full browser-level mega data harvesting, and something that should have 0 effect on non-cattle (adblock users). In my opinion, if you take their word for what it is, it sounds it's just Mozilla reinventing the wheel (tracking cookies being made a universal standard) in a way that changes almost nothing; likely just for their personal profit.
 
Last edited:
If advertisers do not need to track people for attribution purposes, it makes it easier for us to identify and stop tracking.
Sorta sounds to me like it's "the end user's benefit is that advertisers will no longer be tracking them, since we'll simply harvest the data for the advertisers at a browser level and hand it directly to them"

So I'm guessing Zucc is paying Mozilla to do this? It sounds like this is just Mozilla openly admitting to implementing browser-level data harvesting to provide data to Meta?

It reminds me of my wife, if she just stops struggling and takes the beating, then I don't have to beat her as often.
 
1720908219259.png

Fuck Firefox.
 
I'm glad I almost never upgrade FF, and when I do it's onto the oldest ESR release I can get away with. This is because Mozilla has a bad habit of making FF slightly worse with every new release. Looks like they're going all out and making a future release much, much worse.

As sad as it is, despite being riddled with programmer socks, FF is still arguably the least worst mainstream browser overall.

EDIT: I should probably try LibreWolf, but I'm not sure if it supports all the add-ons I use in Firefox to try and unfuck current year Internet as much as humanly possible.
 
Last edited:
Article paid for by Alphabet? Maybe, if they try really hard, one day they'll get within shooting distance of the amount of spying Chrome does on you. If you don't want to be 'spied on', you basically have to not use the Internet...
 
happily using librewolf as a firefox refugee. i tried brave and it just didnt feel right. and im not touching anything chrome with a 10 foot pole. let's hope these features dont migrate their way into librewolf

same. Brave's day 1 built-in advertising credit system immediately put me off that browser. maybe it's nothing but it tripped too many of my (probably overly sensitive) alarms for me to be comfortable with it.
 
How much I bet it's a nothingburger and the thing doesn't even send any personally identifiable information?
Like all it does is send a signal that tells advertisers if you saw their ads or not and nothing else.

Reminder they're also behind this gem https://github.com/mozilla/contain-facebook

They're also not actively hostile towards adblockers.
I mean if it's a problem from your POV you're fucked anyways. It's baked-in the same way Manifest v3 is built into Chromium.
Just use Netscape you got no other option anyways ROFL.
 
Isn't Firefox present in an absurd minority of "enthusiast-type" internet users. You know the type that is most likely to read about this bullshit and instantly turn it off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Punished Magician
Lots of smug "heh enjoy botnet boomer child" people eating a whole lotta shit lately. :thinking:
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoReturn
Firefox CTO has posted damage control about this on Plebbit: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1e43w7v/a_word_about_private_attribution_in_firefox/

Firefox CTO here.
There’s been a lot of discussion over the weekend about the origin trial for a private attribution prototype in Firefox 128. It’s clear in retrospect that we should have communicated more on this one, and so I wanted to take a minute to explain our thinking and clarify a few things. I figured I’d post this here on Reddit so it’s easy for folks to ask followup questions. I’ll do my best to address them, though I’ve got a busy week so it might take me a bit.
The Internet has become a massive web of surveillance, and doing something about it is a primary reason many of us are at Mozilla. Our historical approach to this problem has been to ship browser-based anti-tracking features designed to thwart the most common surveillance techniques. We have a pretty good track record with this approach, but it has two inherent limitations.
First, in the absence of alternatives, there are enormous economic incentives for advertisers to try to bypass these countermeasures, leading to a perpetual arms race that we may not win. Second, this approach only helps the people that choose to use Firefox, and we want to improve privacy for everyone.
This second point gets to a deeper problem with the way that privacy discourse has unfolded, which is the focus on choice and consent. Most users just accept the defaults they’re given, and framing the issue as one of individual responsibility is a great way to mollify savvy users while ensuring that most peoples’ privacy remains compromised. Cookie banners are a good example of where this thinking ends up.
Whatever opinion you may have of advertising as an economic model, it’s a powerful industry that’s not going to pack up and go away. A mechanism for advertisers to accomplish their goals in a way that did not entail gathering a bunch of personal data would be a profound improvement to the Internet we have today, and so we’ve invested a significant amount of technical effort into trying to figure it out.
The devil is in the details, and not everything that claims to be privacy-preserving actually is. We’ve published extensive analyses of how certain other proposals in this vein come up short. But rather than just taking shots, we’re also trying to design a system that actually meets the bar. We’ve been collaborating with Meta on this, because any successful mechanism will need to be actually useful to advertisers, and designing something that Mozilla and Meta are simultaneously happy with is a good indicator we’ve hit the mark.
This work has been underway for several years at the W3C’s PATCG, and is showing real promise. To inform that work, we’ve deployed an experimental prototype of this concept in Firefox 128 that is feature-wise quite bare-bones but uncompromising on the privacy front. The implementation uses a Multi-Party Computation (MPC) system called DAP/Prio (operated in partnership with ISRG) whose privacy properties have been vetted by some of the best cryptographers in the field. Feedback on the design is always welcome, but please show your work.
The prototype is temporary, restricted to a handful of test sites, and only works in Firefox. We expect it to be extremely low-volume, and its purpose is to inform the technical work in PATCG and make it more likely to succeed. It’s about measurement (aggregate counts of impressions and conversions) rather than targeting. It’s based on several years of ongoing research and standards work, and is unrelated to Anonym.
The privacy properties of this prototype are much stronger than even some garden variety features of the web platform, and unlike those of most other proposals in this space, meet our high bar for default behavior. There is a toggle to turn it off because some people object to advertising irrespective of the privacy properties, and we support people configuring their browser however they choose. That said, we consider modal consent dialogs to be a user-hostile distraction from better defaults, and do not believe such an experience would have been an improvement here.
Digital advertising is not going away, but the surveillance parts could actually go away if we get it right. A truly private attribution mechanism would make it viable for businesses to stop tracking people, and enable browsers and regulators to clamp down much more aggressively on those that continue to do so.
 
Back