
Mozilla Recognized as Most Trusted Internet Company for Privacy - cleverjake
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2013/01/28/privacy-day-2013/
======
nikcub
Check the full results.[0] Mozilla ranked below AT&T, who had the iPad leak,
below HP, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, eBay, Verizon, WebMD, etc.

They seem to have 'won' their category through being mis-categorized as
'Internet and Social Media', where they compete against Facebook and Twitter.

In terms of software vendors, they are outranked by most of the big names -
only Google aren't mentioned.

Ranking behind that long list of companies, and only having to beat Twitter
and Facebook on privacy issues is not a big win.

Edit: Also the source of this survey is very vague. It looks like a
lobby/industry group who do nothing but put out surveys. No transparency on
who the people behind it are, who makes up the board or how they are funded.
From the website[1]:

 _Members of the RIM Council represent a cross-section of Fortune 500
companies and are champions of privacy and data protection in their
organizations._

Interesting. So which companies exactly[2]?

 _RIM Council activities operate under strict confidentiality. Sponsorship
revenues from participating Council companies provide funding for our core
activities_

Oh, right.

[0] <http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/1/prweb10363796.htm>

[1] <http://www.ponemon.org/>

[2] <http://www.ponemon.org/rim-council>

~~~
Cowen
It should be noted that this was a web-based survey, not a ranking by security
audits.

> Our Web-based research study asked respondents to name up to five companies
> in 25 different industries they believe to be the most trusted for
> protecting the privacy of their personal information [0]

It's not terribly surprising that, given only five choices, more people chose
some of the most well-known corporations in the world rather than the
relatively PR-challenged Mozilla.

[0]
[http://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/2012%20MTC%20Report...](http://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/2012%20MTC%20Report%20FINAL.pdf)

~~~
mseebach
That bit is fair enough. It's about trust (subjective) not trustworthiness
(objective).

~~~
dfc
How can trustworthiness be objective while trust is subjective?

~~~
mseebach
True. Trustworthiness is probably not a good word. What I meant was that
trustworthiness could be construed as a objective measure (such as that
reached by diligent security and privacy experts), while whether or not you
actually trust someone is basically a feeling. Maybe "Fitness to be trusted"
is a better term?

~~~
krickle
Your intended meaning was very clear since you used parenthesized qualifiers.
IMO any argument on your usage is pedantic at best, but I would have put it as
perceived and empirical/actual trustworthiness.

------
bullseye
From the PRWeb article:

 _More than 100,000 adult-aged consumers were asked to name up to five
companies they believe to be the most trusted for protecting the privacy of
their personal information_

This is nothing more than a name recognition contest. I'm actually surprised
Mozilla made the list at all.

~~~
Freestyler_3
Yes, I agree. Also how many consumers know how their/others privacy is
handled/valued by these companies. Beauty contest thats all. (most brand
related surveys don't mean much, because not many people know a thing or 2
about the lesser known companies)

------
jre
I really love what Mozilla is doing and they would be pretty close to #1 on my
trusted companies list.

Sadly, the post is so misleading and borderline dishonest that it just makes
them seem a bit less trustful. I mean, the study's categorization is seriously
arbitrary and for example Microsoft, which is a direct Mozilla competitor, is
ranked higher overall but isn't in the same category.

Also, Google (another Mozilla competitor) wasn't ranked this year, but they
were rank 19 last year (Mozilla is 20)...

This is really a good example that you'll always find a way to segment your
data so you can push your agenda.

~~~
zabraxias
As someone already mentioned these end-user surveys seem to be closer to
popularity contests. I have no doubt MS, Google, Apple etc are astronomically
more popular than Mozilla and will rank higher based on name recognition.

These results probably do hold another meaning but it would take someone
better than me at testing to figure that out.

------
doe88
That's the main reason why Firefox is still my main browser, I trust the
Mozilla Foundation to do the right thing. Also, there is no nagging "connect
to your account" every time I restart the browser or open a new tab or
whatever, I hate this message, I want to browse the web not connect to another
service. Moreover I find it is still the more convenient browser for
customization and tweaking. For instance I only have to set
network.http.sendRefererHeader to 0 to prevent sending http referrers. I use
the Nightly version and it's pretty stable although I would prefer not having
to restart FF after each update.

~~~
shitlord
Yup, I love using firefox for the same reasons. It's just so incredibly
customizable, and you can't get that level of customizability/compatibility in
any other major web browser.

------
jcburnham
This is some gerrymandered surveying.

Yes, technically Mozilla comes in at #1 in the Internet & Social Media
Category, but that category excludes higher-ranking companies such as Amazon
(classified as eCommerce), ebay (eCommerce), WebMD (healthcare), Microsoft
(technology and software), and Intuit (technology and software).

Let's be real, if the parent company of Mint.com beats you, then this isn't
really much to brag about. I mean, I do love me some Mozilla, but come on now.

------
TheEskimo
The article's title is misleading. I read the linked study (pdf and prweb
summary of results) and found nothing to support that they are the "Most
Trusted Internet Company"... In fact, Amazon, eBay, WebMD, and Microsoft are
all above it on the list. All of those I'd consider to be "Internet
companies". If you alter it, as Mozilla did in the paragraph below, to read
"Internet & Social Media" then it's right according to the linked pdf, but
that's hardly the same thing as the title.

I do trust Mozilla far more than the other companies that made this list, but
I can't help but feel their title is intentionally misleading.

I do find it odd that Mozilla didn't end up higher of course. Out of the
listed entities I don't think any of the others are non-profit (nor have
something like the Mozilla Manifesto as a guiding principal), and if any are I
doubt that they understand crypto anywhere near as well as Mozilla. I trust
Mozilla because they not only have the desire to keep me safe, but also have
the technical know-how.

------
rayiner
In other news: Mozilla basically the only major internet company whose
business model isn't built on selling your privacy.

~~~
lawdawg
I love both companies, but you realize Mozilla makes most of their money
because of a search deal with Google, right?

~~~
rayiner
Yeah, but selling your privacy isn't the point of its existence, unlike
Google, Facebok, Twitter, etc. That makes it the top performer in the Special
Olympics, so to speak.

~~~
hollerith
>Yeah, but selling your privacy isn't the point of its existence, unlike
Google

I usually agree with your comments, rayiner, but have to disagree with this
one.

Unless there is very strong evidence to the contrary (and neither Mozilla's
mission statement nor its non-profit status qualifies as very strong
evidence), any organization that depends on an organization that 'sells your
privacy' (your words) for over 90% of its income is just as bad-for-your-
privacy in the long term as an organization that directly sells your privacy.

~~~
whatusername
When I type my words in the little magic box mozilla sends them to the one
company I want to see them -- google. I'm not sure how that's a betrayal of
privacy? (unless Mozilla is sending _other_ words to google.

------
stanleydrew
Ironic that the page gives me a mixed content warning:

"The page at <https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2013/01/28/privacy-day-2013/>
displayed insecure content from [http://blog.mozilla.org/files/2013/01/most-
trusted-privacy-2...](http://blog.mozilla.org/files/2013/01/most-trusted-
privacy-2012-252x218.jpg.)

------
hosay123
As much as I love Mozilla for precisely this reason, it cannot go without
remark that the majority of their funding continues to come from the
metaphorical privacy antichrist, Google. This could change as early as 2014
when the search contract is due for renewal.

Can anyone comment on Mozilla's future revenue plans? Are they aiming to
license Firefox OS?

~~~
stanleydrew
Do you really believe that Google is the "metaphorical privacy antichrist" and
if so, can I ask what exactly makes you feel that way?

~~~
krenoten
People tell Google incredibly intimate things on an hourly basis, many of
which Google then sells to pesterers or gives to three letter agencies. People
may catch on eventually, but most simply don't think they need to care what
the consequences may be.

~~~
DannyBee
Google doesn't sell anything.

~~~
vor_
Google sells users to its customers: advertisers.

~~~
stanleydrew
No it doesn't. It sells ad space next to content on valuable internet
properties. Google Search and YouTube being the two big ones.

Please everyone, stop sensationalizing this. Google doesn't "sell users" or
"sell your privacy" any more than, e.g., NBC, which sells ads alongside its
content.

~~~
vor_
Yes, it does; of course it does. Google's reason for getting everyone
connected through its services is to gain an audience for targeted
advertising. It's certainly not "sensationalizing" to point that out. It needs
users for its advertisers, and it sells access to those users.

NBC does too--they are a business that depends on readership/viewership
because they make their money from advertising. That means that their business
is to attract as many consumers of their content as they can so that their
advertisers can reach them.

I'm surprised that this would even be considered a controversial point to
make. Perhaps you don't like the wording: calling you their "product" and the
advertisers their "customers". But there's not meant to be a personal element
to it. It's simply an explanation of what their business model is.

~~~
stanleydrew
I think you're being a bit disingenuous. I'm pretty sure I understand Google's
business model. And you should know that I understand it based on my other
comments in this thread.

What I don't think is particularly helpful is the characterization of that
business model as "selling users" or "selling privacy", which are phrasings
that you and other commenters here have used. Those phrasings are designed to
spread FUD about Google.

I don't think people usually say things like "NBC is selling it's
users/viewers to advertisers." The normal thing to say is "NBC sells
advertisement slots during its programs."

~~~
vor_
I've never said they're "selling privacy", whatever that means. Presumably,
that's shorthand for selling access to personal information, which is a
simplistic characterization but not entirely inaccurate with respect to how
targeted advertising works.

However, I don't understand how it is spreading FUD to point out that an
advertising company sells eyeballs. It seems like you're focusing on
connotations of terminology, but rephrasing what Google or NBC does doesn't
change what it is they do: selling eyeballs. Why do you think Super Bowl spots
are so expensive?

Maybe this clashes with the image you have of Google as a benevolent group of
engineers who just want to make the world a better place. Certainly, a company
can be comprised of employees who care about technology but also rely on a
business model that might be cynically criticized or, at the least, described
in a way that may not appear as benevolent as you previously thought.

However, that wasn't even my intent. I was just being concise.

~~~
stanleydrew
I can appreciate conciseness. And I agree that you were being concise. I also
agree that I am focusing on the connotations of the words you used. That's the
thing about FUD: usually the words are _technically_ accurate. But the
connotation ensures that a deeper, scarier message is conveyed.

I do take you at your word though that it was not your intention. Take this
discussion then as a warning that your statement may not have come off as you
intended it to.

It is not FUD to point out that a company sells eyeballs. If you had said
"Google sells users' eyeballs to its customers: advertisers" you would have
received no complaint from me. Adding that single word, "eyeballs", entirely
clarifies your statement. Without it, people will need to fill in something
else since we all know Google isn't literally selling its users to
advertisers. A lot of people will interpret your statement as "Google sells
users' personal information to its customers: advertisers."

Leaving out the clarification made it seem as though you wanted to allow the
reader to draw a more frightening conclusion about Google's business model
than is justified by reality.

Anyway I think we both agree. I have friends at Google, but they are in ad
sales and HR not engineering. So I certainly don't think of Google as merely a
"benevolent group of engineers." I have no problem calling out their business
model for what it is. But accuracy and precision is important, especially when
being concise.

------
duskwuff
Note that Mozilla wasn't #1 on the list. They were just added to the list (at
#20). Amex is #1.

[http://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/2012%20MTC%20Report...](http://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/2012%20MTC%20Report%20FINAL.pdf)

~~~
rayiner
Mozilla is the #1 in the internet/social media industry. See page 7.
Unsurprisingly, the industry as a whole ranks last out of the 25 industries in
the list.

~~~
DannyBee
Actually this is really surprising, considering a lot of the
companies/industries ranked above it are _much_ worse at privacy, just much
better at the snow job of hiding it.

Taking banking, ranked #3, which has a lot of companies (well, basically all
of them) that not only sell all of your transaction info/etc, you can't opt
out, and it isn't very anonymized.

Look at [https://www.bankofamerica.com/privacy/consumer-privacy-
notic...](https://www.bankofamerica.com/privacy/consumer-privacy-notice.go)

for an example.

At least with most internet companies, you can opt out if you like, and most
internet companies do _not_ share with affiliates. It's not like Facebook is
selling your social data to advertisers directly, instead it's selling the
ability to show ads to people like you.

This is a far cry from "hey, want records of what dannyb bought in the last
month with his BoA account so you can market better? Here you go!"

------
rdl
The irony is that Firefox is by far the least secure current browser (after
Chrome, then probably Safari and IE10 for various reasons, then Firefox).

~~~
mweibel
Erm - why exactly? Sources?

~~~
dbaupp
I think most of the others have JS sandboxing, but FF doesn't.

~~~
rdl
Along with key pinning, general effort put into security by google (fixing
webkit fixes safari for free, etc.)

Mozilla is doing awesome stuff for _privacy_ (persona is a great idea and if
it displaces FB connect is a huge win for privacy), but is slacking on
security by comparison.

------
benologist
What a joke. If any browser vendor really gave a fuck about privacy it would
simply not be a problem anymore at all.

It's certainly not worthy to have to deceive your way to the top of a list
that exists because of how _little_ privacy really matters to browser vendors.

~~~
justinph
How would this happen like you say?

Browsers stop accepting third party cookies & scripts, block ads, disable
localStorage, etc?

It'd be the browser that no one would use, because half the sites on the 'net
wouldn't work.

Like many big problems, the solution is a lot more nuanced than you suggest.
It involves browsers having more stringent defaults, website makers caring
more (altruistically or by legislation) and consumers caring more.

~~~
benologist
They fight off viruses, malware, exploits, etc so I think mostly we should
consider this a classification problem only from where we sit.

Most of the net works too - AdBlock, NoScript and Ghostery wouldn't be amongst
the most popular extensions on multiple browsers if they had many negative
consequences.

------
randomstring
The same report lists the NRA as the most trusted non-profit. Not exactly the
ringing endorsement the Mozilla's blog makes it out to be.

However, Mozilla should get some branding kudos for having enough people
associate privacy and trustworthiness with the Mozilla brand.

------
canistr
I open up the study and find the following:

 _American Express (AMEX) continues to reign as the most trusted company for
privacy among 217 organizations rated in our most trusted companies list. New
entrants to this year’s top 20 most trusted list includes: Microsoft (ranked
17), United Healthcare (ranked 18) and Mozilla (ranked 20)._

So not exactly the "Most Trusted Internet Company for Privacy" given they were
ranked 20th and AMEX was ranked first.

Source:
[http://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/2012%20MTC%20Report...](http://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/2012%20MTC%20Report%20FINAL.pdf)

~~~
azakai
American Express was in a different category than Mozilla. American Express
was first over all categories, yeah.

(The survey and categories are a bit weird, no argument there.)

------
mb123
Yeh for anyone who has a website, Mozilla Persona is a great method for users
to login

<http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/persona/>

you can see it action when you login (4th option presented) to
<http://ebookoid.com/>

------
macspoofing
I'll buy that. They have no ulterior motive to collect personal data and they
have been very vocal on privacy issues.

------
ghurlman
From the study:

 _Note: The eCommerce subgroup consists of Internet retainers (merchants). All
other Internet companies are contained in the Internet & Social Media
subgroup._

Otherwise, Amazon beats out Mozilla handily.

------
Millennium
Being the most trusted internet company for privacy is like being the branch
of the sewer with the fewest disease-carrying rats. Sure, you're the best of
the bunch, but how much does that really say?

------
dobbsbob
haha privacy. then why when I type about:config in FF and search for google
plenty of spying comes up.

~~~
charonn0
I see safe browsing and default search related settings. Why would this be
surprising?

------
teeja
For what it's worth, security & software guy Steve Gibson uses the Firefox
browser.

------
lucb1e
I understand why, but it's ironic to see that the article's domain is
"mozilla.org".

For the Dutch people around here: "Wij van WC-eend..." :)

~~~
shardling
Why is it ironic?

~~~
brokenparser
Parent is saying ACME has the best products, according to ACME. I, for one,
don't click such articles as they're usually biased to favour the authors.
_Checks real quick_ In this case, Mozilla really ranked #20 but were #1 in
their category of just 12. The article reeks of exploding just one tiny bullet
point in a report which appears not to have been reviewed much outside of
Ponemon Institute LLC except for the fine commentary here on HN.

(See [http://search.cpan.org/~chromatic/Acme-
Incorporated-1.00/lib...](http://search.cpan.org/~chromatic/Acme-
Incorporated-1.00/lib/Acme/Incorporated.pm) )

------
tferris
Congrats to Mozilla but honestly, I wonder when they implement Retina support,
Web Audio API and other goodies (or must-haves) Chrome and Safari have for
years. It's hard to use such a browser in 2013.

