Mozilla eyes up utilising Phorm.

[punky]

Linky

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.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Wildie

just found this on the reg
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...ox_data_snoop/
well if they do go down that route they be losing the browser war %

Following on from the above post, I felt that little snippet of info needed it's own thread.

This , assuming it operates as described in the article is actually more offensive to me than Phorm. At least with Phorm, you have the option of using VPN or Https with a fair amount of certainty that it won't be easy for them to access your encrypted data. With Firefox, the Browser is doing the profiling and has access to the unencrypted data either way.

The plus side of the Mozilla system is that it only affects Firefox (Phorm affects everything), and that it is opt in.

[downquark1]

First of all it says a voluntary basis. Secondly firefox is open source meaning it should be possible to see exactly what is it collecting and even remove the feature in a private build.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by downquark1

First of all it says a voluntary basis. Secondly firefox is open source meaning it should be possible to see exactly what is it collecting and even remove the feature in a private build.

First: I did say it was opt in.

Second: Why should users have to go looking for versions of a browser than have no tracking mechanism?

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

I did say it was opt in..

Sorry, Well I don't like the idea and would disable, but since it is open source software running on your computer it is inherently more transparent and controllable.

[Wildie]

you find Phorm are not saying alot about their system to anyone just snippets and then retracts and then more snippets so how does open source help with them not been so open.

[Stuart]

It looks like Mozilla is designing and building their own system which just happens to do the same thing as Phorm, but in a slightly different way..

[dev]

Originally Posted by downquark1

First of all it says a voluntary basis. Secondly firefox is open source meaning it should be possible to see exactly what is it collecting and even remove the feature in a private build.

second point is mute, there are ways to stop your traffic being profiled by the phorm system

[Druchii]

Hopefully in a much nicer way too. I wouldn't mind using it if it can truly be disabled/switched off/not opted-into ever.

Hate Phorm however.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by dev

second point is mute, there are ways to stop your traffic being profiled by the phorm system

I disagree to a degree. The ways to avoid phorm are far more inconvenient and will probably hinder internet speed.

The idea is still bad, but implementing it on an open source software level is safer and less of an obstacle to avoid. Saying that given the paranoid nature of most open-source activists I can't see this idea getting off the ground.

[dev]

Originally Posted by Druchii

Hopefully in a much nicer way too. I wouldn't mind using it if it can truly be disabled/switched off/not opted-into ever.

Hate Phorm however.

if you can turn it off, why would you be using it?

Originally Posted by downquark1

I disagree to a degree. The ways to avoid phorm are far more inconvenient and will probably hinder internet speed.

The idea is still bad, but implementing it on an open source software level is safer and less of an obstacle to avoid. Saying that given the paranoid nature of most open-source activists I can't see this idea getting off the ground.

depends on the level of the user, i'd find getting around either relatively easy. the average joe who's using firefox because a friend told them to won't have a clue. i can see this being an option in the installer whereby you have to deselect it to disable it, then again won't affect me as i dont use, nor have any plans to use firefox

[slowcoach]

You can be sure of one thing, it will never appear in Iceweasel the Debian version of Firefox.