
Testing Cliqz in Firefox - hnaccy
https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-in-firefox/
======
leeoniya
This is fine if the user is fully informed in advance and has your consent
before using the software. It is absolutely unacceptable to do this behind
their backs.

If this was a feature that was shown to be highly beneficial to your users,
then why deploy it to just 1%? Super shady. This is Pocket all over again.

Will this be something that can be fully disabled?

Not something I ever expected to see out of privacy-focused Mozilla. Are we
going to need a world with unmozillad-firefox, à la
[https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-
chromium](https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium) ?

Sad day.

~~~
Vinnl
Reading over the technical description [1], I agree that this does not live up
to the standards I expect from Mozilla (although it's not as bad as some
people make it out).

That said, rolling out new features to 1% of users first is not that
extraordinary. Especially considering that we (or at least, I) hadn't heard of
this experiment earlier, and that there's only now erupting some fuss over
this, it seems like a good idea to still consider it in the experimental phase
and thus just roll it out to an initial batch. And hopefully back out of it
later.

[1]
[https://gist.github.com/solso/423a1104a9e3c1e3b8d7c9ca14e885...](https://gist.github.com/solso/423a1104a9e3c1e3b8d7c9ca14e885e5)

~~~
Feniks
Surely you know how search engines make money? They need users. Can't sell
adspace without users.

Were Mozilla says recommendations I say payed referrals ;)

I mean yeah search engines started as charitable organizations long ago but
now? Tangentially related I noticed how it is impossible to remove all the
embedded search engines in Firefox...

~~~
KGIII
I don't really remember search engines being charitable? My first exposure to
the online search arena was human-powered, slow, and expensive. As in, you
paid someone to scour the 'net for you and return the results to you.

DMOZ is the only charitable search that I really know of, and I think they are
shutting down.

------
Yetanfou
A quick look at the source of the extension shows they use the following
addresses for gathering data and publishing 'offers':

    
    
       https://abtests.cliqz.com
       https://anolysis-gid.cliqz.com
       https://anolysis-telemetry.cliqz.com
       https://antiphishing.cliqz.com
       https://anti-tracking.cliqz.com
       https://api.cliqz.com
       https://cdn.cliqz.com
       https://cliqz.com
       https://hpn-collector.cliqz.com
       https://hpn-sign.cliqz.com
       https://offers-api.cliqz.com
       https://safe-browsing.cliqz.com
       https://safe-browsing-quorum.cliqz.com
       https://stats.cliqz.com
    

These can be added to the blocklist on the router or just watched for fun and
profit, your choice.

As an aside, both the domain name 'cliqz.com' as well as the use of terms like
'offers' leave a bad taste. If this is really meant to be a legitimate
operation they could have done better than to copy the language of the bottom
feeders of the 'net, now they just come across like a revamp of 'Bonzi Buddy'
and its ilk, watching users' browsing habits to provide 'shopping
opportunities' and such drivel.

------
hysan
I'm going to repeat the same thing I said during the whole Pocket fiasco. Why
not have this pre-installed as an add-on but disabled? You can make an
announcement on the updates page with your reasoning, and users who feel like
this is worthwhile can opt-in by enabling it. Why is this being enabled by
default for 1% of users?

~~~
482794793792894
Because 1% of users is still probably an order of magnitude higher than
however many would opt-in and because they want as broad of a user-base. If
you only have people that opt-in, you'll pretty much only have power-users.

~~~
hysan
But is that worth the damage to the brand?

I tried to support Firefox for as long as I could, but their mixed messages
about what they stood for + poor performance (at the time) eventually forced
my hand in switching browsers. However, they did apologize after the huge
backlash post-Pocket. Combined with all the news about FF 57 and Quantum, I
was intrigued enough to consider giving them a second chance. This move
though... it is so much worse than any other misstep they've done. From my
point of view, this just seems like an opportunistic attempt at slipping
something by right before one of their biggest releases / PR pushes. I cannot
see myself ever believing in Mozilla the organization anymore.

~~~
482794793792894
If you actually look into it, there's basically nothing that you can accuse
them of here.

There's the possibility that Cliqz does actually start collecting the data,
i.e. breaks the contract, commits a crime, and that then Mozilla, which owns
parts of Cliqz and therefore has insight, does not notice right away.

Other than that, there's nothing. No serious journalist will pick this up,
because it would in turn damage their reputation to accuse Mozilla of
mishandling user data here.

Yes, it is still going to damage Mozilla's brand, because people prefer
conspiracy theories over actually reading up on what they're doing, but it's
going to stay isolated to first-hand news discussion forums, like HN, Reddit,
Slashdot.

This is simply an investment that Mozilla is willing to take to potentially
improve search in their browser and to decrease the internet's dependence on
classic web search engines, which is to say Google.

~~~
jasonkostempski
Its really fucking simple, NO TRUST! If something reqires that I have take
someones word for it, then the feature does not belong in a privacy focused
application, no exceptions.

~~~
matt4077
And that's really fucking unworkable as a principle. Because you rely on trust
thousands of times every day, if you want it or not.

~~~
pdkl95
> Because you rely on trust thousands of times every day,

Of course; everyone makes countless _decisions_ about who to trust every day,
as we _adapt_ to our changing knowledge, environment, and situation. These
decisions are necessarily _unique_ to each person.

 _Trust is not transitive._

You can recommend some{one,thing} as trustworthy, and you an explain why you
trust some{one,thing}. However, you cannot get other people to trust a 3rd
party - even if they _do_ trust you - simply by fiat. Trust is _earned_ , and
betraying existing trust is _very_ hard recover.

This attitude that asks users to believe that trust is transitive but risk is
_not_ transitive is misguided, rude, and possibly sociopathic.

~~~
rrix2
> Trust is not transitive.

So you only browse sites whose SSL cert was issued by Mozilla? Or do you trust
the SSL root Store provided by Mozilla and your OS and, transitively, everyone
they trust?

~~~
pdkl95
No, I do _not_ trust the entire set of root authorities provided by Mozilla. I
have disabled some of the certs. The entire PKI system - as currently
implemented - is another abuse of trust. The user needs to be _informed_ about
the chain-of-trust that is _currently_ vouching the website they are using.
The user also needs an easy way to _indicate_ who they trust and the
scope/limits of their trust. A proper _web of trust_ [1] can respect the user.

[1] [https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~adrian/630-f04/PGP-
intro.html#p19](https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~adrian/630-f04/PGP-intro.html#p19)

~~~
rrix2
That you've disabled _some_ of the Mozilla roots is laudable. However you're
still trusting every other root to trust their intermediaries to trust their
intermediaries and on and on to trust the people they issue certs to. This is
fundamentally how the modern internet works. The same is true for DNS as SSL.

As for your solution: a web of trust is also transitive, unless your depth of
trust is one. If your depth of trust is one, the only way you're productively
browsing the internet is by doing TOFU for every single cert at which point I
have other questions.

~~~
pdkl95
You're completely missing the point; this isn't about technical protocols, nor
is it about _minimizing_ trust. I can _choose_ to agree with Mozilla or a root
CA[1]. Trusting intermediaries does not necessarily involve _transitive_
trust. Someone that trusts Mozilla _does not_ necessarily _also_ trust a 3rd
party simply because Mozilla trusts them. Mozilla cannot simply _force_ anyone
to trust a 3rd party by fiat, and attempting to do so (such as in the current
situation) can easily be seen as a betrayal.

[1] re: root CAs and "trust the people they issue certs to" \- that isn't how
the current PKI system works. The CA is only vouching for the validity of a
certificate. Trusting a CA's claims about the identify of the other end of a
SSL connection is orthogonal to the trustworthiness of the 2nd party at the
other side of the SSL socket.

------
cityzen
Sort of off topic but if you use Ghostery, it was acquired by Cliqz back in
February:

[https://www.ghostery.com/blog/ghostery-news/ghostery-
acquire...](https://www.ghostery.com/blog/ghostery-news/ghostery-acquired-
cliqz/)

It’s really hard to understand what is going on with the web these days. There
seems to be this whole bait > acquire > switch routine is the exit strategy.
Take the whole unrollme/uber thing:

[https://theintercept.com/2017/04/24/stop-using-unroll-me-
rig...](https://theintercept.com/2017/04/24/stop-using-unroll-me-right-now-it-
sold-your-data-to-uber/)

oh well... it was a fun ride while it lasted

------
amingilani
Cliqz is like a search engine in your address bar:
[https://cliqz.com/en/](https://cliqz.com/en/)

I think it's a nice tool, but auto-opting in users' data to be forwarded to
Cliqz servers is kinda shitty. I get that there are no user profiles being
built, but it's still concerning for me.

~~~
IgorPartola
Oh yeah. It’s going to be super difficult to guess who I am when I log into
example.com and it redirects me to example.com/profile/igorpartola. Nothing to
see here. Nothing at all.

~~~
floatingatoll
We don’t want to know who you are. We obsess over not knowing who you are.
None of us want to know who you are. I know this is of little assurance, but
all the same.

~~~
kuschku
Have fun dealing with ALL the 16 Landesdatenschutzbeauftragten taking a very
close look at you.

Considering that all this tracking has to be opt-in under German law (I talked
with the Landesdatenschutzbeauftragte of my state about your "experiment" here
already, and they confirmed it), I’d say you can expect quite some trouble
with the way you’re running this shit.

~~~
482794793792894
Collecting personally identifying information has to be opt-in. They don't
collect personally identifying information.

~~~
kuschku
That is for the Datenschutzbeauftragte and the courts to decide, if your IP
and your entire browsing history combined is personally identifying or not.

But even if it is not, hopefully the resulting media presence is enough to
either kill Mozilla, or to ensure everyone at Mozilla that considers this a
good idea is fired.

~~~
482794793792894
They don't either collect the IP. They receive it, simply because a network
communication has to take place, but they don't store it. And while they do
collect your browsing history in fuzzied form, it's intermixed with other
people's browsing history, therefore cannot either be used to identify you.

And yes, at the end of the day, it's up to the Datenschutzbeauftragte and the
courts to decide, but I really do think that you delude yourself, if you
believe this will go anywhere. They'd have locked up the entirety of Google
and Microsoft multiple times already.

~~~
kuschku
> They'd have locked up the entirety of Google and Microsoft multiple times
> already.

They have sued Google and Microsoft into the ground multiple times already.
There’s a reason half of Google Photos and Facebook’s features aren’t
available in Germany (including no face recognition).

Thilo Weichert, previous Landesdatenschutzbeauftragter of SH was constantly in
the media due to constantly suing (and winning) against Google, Facebook and
co.

------
1024core
> Users who receive a version of Firefox with Cliqz will have their browsing
> activity sent to Cliqz servers, including the URLs of pages they visit.

Yep, this should end well.

Mozilla has been trying to sell out for years. c.f.: Pocket

~~~
floatingatoll
Correction: We bought Pocket, not sold out to Pocket.

~~~
mercer
Your behavior in this discussion sickens me, and I'm not saying that lightly.

Not only is this 'clickz' thing antithetical to any privacy argument that made
me a supporter of Mozilla and Firefox, the fact that you're in here responding
as if this is not a big deal is a slap in the face. I was bothered by having
Pocket shoved down my throat, let alone another unasked privacy situation.

What's so difficult about just providing a fucking browser that _does not_
harvest my data for ads? Are you bored?

I've seriously never been angry on an online forum since I was in my teens,
and yet here we are.

~~~
heeen2
Devil's advocate, but the difficulty is a delivering a very complex piece of
software to a highly competitive market to customers not willing to pay for
anything.

------
stewbrew
Marketing fun in action: "we highlighted the increasing problem of
centralisation and how that impacts discovery on the Web."

And that's why they send all their user's data to one central place that
responds with recommendations where they should go to next.

------
AlbertoGP
I've just opened an issue at uBlockOrigin with information on the URLs used by
this thing:

[https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/743](https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/743)

~~~
zakk
Can it block other extensions?

~~~
AlbertoGP
As noted by someone else in the issue discussion, the old version (works until
Firefox 57 arrives) can, but the new webext version can not:
[https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Firefox-
WebExtensions...](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Firefox-
WebExtensions#differences-with-ubolegacy)

~~~
lucb1e
WebEx seems like a worse and worse idea (or perhaps it's just the execution)
every single time I read anything about it.

~~~
girst
IMHO sandboxing extensions is overall a good thing. A rouge extension could
have access to e.g. your password manager otherwise.

~~~
jhasse
Thing is: I trust uBlock Origin more than I trust Mozilla.

------
zakk
Is this a joke?

I started using FF as my primary browser two weeks ago, thanks to the good
performance of Quantum in beta and the new brand image as the privacy-oriented
browser.

If this ends up on a single download I will switch back to Safari.

~~~
chrisper
We are both in the same boat. I just switched from Chrome to FF Beta recently.
And now this...

------
shevy
Now mozilla totally lost it.

I realized a few months ago that mozilla is run by google drones, so it no
longer surprises me that mozilla kills itself.

But the level of stupidity is amazing. I think the people who work there are
deliberately recruited in regards to who is the better one at killing off
mozilla.

~~~
rrix2
Which google drones? Can you point to particular names or is this just a
random theory?

------
toyg
What the flying fuck, Mozilla???? You build your brand around privacy and
freedom from tracking, then you pull a stunt like this? Are you guys _trying_
to fail?

~~~
floatingatoll
Remember that we’ve argued for thousands of hours over multiple _years_ about
this stuff internally. I’m not involved directly with the teams, but I’ve been
part of their discussions. These are not actions taken lightly, and they are
absolutely and wholeheartedly in service of improving the experience of all
users.

~~~
IgorPartola
I totally get that, but this is a pretty classic example of what the road to
hell is paved with. Sending my browsing history to a remote server is not a
thing a browser should do. How did the discussion not end when this was
brought up?

I was literally today getting ramped up to switch to Firefox. Now I have to be
on a constant lookout for stuff like this?

I think this may actually do enough damage to kill Firefox. And for what?
Better search? Firefox is a browser, not Google/Bing/DDG/whatever.

Honestly, if you guys wanted to know where to find good porn on the internet,
why didn’t you just ask?

~~~
methodin
From which browser?

------
esaym
This is no good. I've used only Mozilla/Firefox since 2003. Even this makes me
want to leave. I can't help but wonder why? Desperate for money? No body will
believe the story that this is some how for "good"

------
yorwba
> Eines von Mozillas zentralen Prinzipien zum Schutz von Daten lautet Keine
> Überraschungen.

 _One of Mozilla 's central data protection principles is No Surprises._

I damn well hope that the download link will be clearly marked as an altered
version of Firefox, explain that the complete browsing history will be
collected and analyzed, and will preclude absolutely any way to accidentally
download it without understanding the risk.

~~~
floatingatoll
To clarify, when you say “complete browser history” you describe what Chrome
does, where the entire browser history is sent to Google for sync and
analysis.

Did you mean to say “all links visited in the Cliqz-enabled browser”, or
otherwise does the post somewhere express any intention to collect visit data
from prior to Cliqz?

~~~
pseudalopex
To clarify, when you say "what Chrome does", you describe what Chrome does if
you sign in.

The article doesn't say prior history won't be collected, and the grandparent
didn't say it will be. If you want to be pedantic, someone installing Firefox
from the main download page probably won't have any prior history.

~~~
fwn
It's ironic that this might end up being a privacy argument for Chrome over
Firefox. At least you can decide not to log in.

------
gmb2k1
You can upvote the bug report:

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1406647](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1406647)

Personally, I think, that's a horrible move by mozilla, that destroys any
momentum that they gained with the quantum project.

~~~
axonic
I did. Interestingly, I also tried to view a related bug to find "You are not
authorized to access". How fitting. There seems to be a fight between people
trying to raise the issue to Mozilla's attention, and the staff. So they get
caught doing something shady again, get told to stop, and react by posting
pseudopolite comments about how we've made their work experience difficult,
close comment threads, and come spread misinformation here? What should be
done?

------
will4274
It's clear that this move won't be popular with a vocal portion of FFs
_developer_ base. I have to wonder - is there a breaking point in the future
where a meaningful fork begins? The only other product of a similar size that
I can think of being forked is OpenOffice/LibreOffice - and, in that case, the
original was effectively defunded.

~~~
floatingatoll
The TOR browser is the fork you seek. It already turns off every bit of phone-
anywhere that we have, and we work with them to keep that the case. Use it and
be merry.

~~~
fwn
This is very bad advice.

The TOR browser is not just a Firefox without the data traps, it's tunneling
your connection through the onion network. This is something you have to be
aware of while browsing. It has many implications!

------
NegativeLatency
Sneak the unpopular news out on a Friday evening.

~~~
floatingatoll
We _work_ on Friday evenings, and a lot of staff participate on HN. Enjoy your
evening off; I’m spending mine on Hacker News.

~~~
stewbrew
Is HN officially work now?

~~~
jkoll
If you're shilling, it is.

------
cowchase
Awful. Who are the suits that are sabotaging Mozilla's core mission? Don't
they understand that Mozillas Unique Selling Point is trust? Why the hell are
they fumbling the ball?

------
jasonkostempski
Dev tools are completely useless after the update I got today and now they're
pulling more anti-privacy stunts. Not a happy user right now.

~~~
floatingatoll
Which dev tools, specifically? What functionality is broken? Is this in 56 or
57?

~~~
lucb1e
I've wanted vertical tabs forever but existing addons didn't work or held my
cpu at 100% the whole time. A little while ago they trialled it with Firefox
Test Pilot and I've been enjoying it ever since. Now they broke their own
addon in Firefox 56, which is not even suppossed to have the shit
webextensions yet. I was going to stay at 56 for a while until there were
replacements for everything, but it seems 55 was the last usable version.

I don't know what parent means specifically, but 56 already started breaking
stuff irrevocably for me.

~~~
floatingatoll
If you switch to the ESR client, it'll retain working old-extensions support
and continue offering security updates for a while longer.

------
arkitaip
If I understand the Google translation correctly, Mozilla has invested in
Germany based Cliqz, basically a privacy oriented fork of Firefox. Cliqz has a
feature which displays contextual information in the address bar and
apparently Mozilla is experimenting with this feature in Firefox. German users
(less than 1% of them) who download Firefox will have the Cliqz addon
activated and the addon will collect anonymized user data, such as which URLs
have been visited. Cliqz's attempt to collect data while safe guarding user
privacy is called Human Web [0] and the code is open source [1].

[0]
[https://gist.github.com/solso/423a1104a9e3c1e3b8d7c9ca14e885...](https://gist.github.com/solso/423a1104a9e3c1e3b8d7c9ca14e885e5)

[1] [https://github.com/cliqz-oss/browser-
core/blob/master/module...](https://github.com/cliqz-oss/browser-
core/blob/master/modules/human-web/sources/human-web.es)

------
jshb
Ask toolbar lives again, this time in Firefox.

------
jitl
tl;dr can someone summarize for non-German readers?

Why?

~~~
482794793792894
Well, first of all, I wouldn't call it "tracking". They're going to be
aggregating the data and specifically promise to not create profiles on
individual users.

Secondly, I wouldn't necessarily call it "third-party" either, since Mozilla
owns parts of the Cliqz GmbH, so will at least know what's going on inside the
company and can easily pull the plug, if Cliqz should actually start to store
user data.

Generally speaking, though, Cliqz is a content recommendation engine, trying
to compete with web search engines, so sort of hoping to take a bit of world
domination (and money) out of Google's hands.

The actual recommendations will be generated locally without sending data to
Cliqz, but they do need a data set that tells them what users are usually
looking for based on the browsing history that they have.

~~~
mthoms
>The actual recommendations will be generated locally without sending data to
Cliqz

If this is true, that's great news. They should mention it in the post IMHO.

~~~
floatingatoll
I suspect it would make little difference. Either users are okay with server-
side data collection (with differential privacy etc), or they are hostile to
all data collection full stop. The in-between nuance of “results generated
locally” does nothing to salve the anguish of this post’s comments. I wish it
would.

------
osivertsson
Tin-foil hat: "Invisible hand" is trying to make mass surveillance of Firefox
users easier.

------
sharmi
TL;DR

Cliqz provides recommendations such as news, weather news, or the world of
sports, while typing into the address line. Next week, a little less than one
percent of the German users who download Firefox from mozilla's central
download page will receive a Firefox version with the Cliqz recommendations
activated automatically. This includes the data capture tool that records the
surfing activities those users, including the URLs of the pages they visit.
The data are sent to the Cliqz servers. Cliqz promises to anonimize the data.
The data gathering code is available online at [1] and a description methods
of gathering at [2]. One can always use the Disable Data Recovery or
completely remove the Cliqz add-on.

[1] [https://github.com/cliqz-oss/browser-
core/blob/master/module...](https://github.com/cliqz-oss/browser-
core/blob/master/modules/human-web/sources/human-web.es)

[2]
[https://gist.github.com/solso/423a1104a9e3c1e3b8d7c9ca14e885...](https://gist.github.com/solso/423a1104a9e3c1e3b8d7c9ca14e885e5)

------
hiram112
Wow - just when it looked like Mozilla might be on the right path again, after
years of incredibly bad ideas, they remind us all why we moved to Chrome.

------
fiatjaf
Hey, I want that. How do I opt in?

~~~
482794793792894
I think, the Cliqz browser extension will do the same:
[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/cliqz/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/cliqz/)

------
inamberclad
why?

------
Feniks
Christ Almighty if I wanted Chrome I would be using Chrome.

I specifically use FF to get away from this stuff. I have no Google or
Facebook account and block/erase as many trackers and cookies because I'm not
interested in aiding your data mining quest. Bah.

------
jdright
English announcement here: [https://blog.mozilla.org/press-
uk/2016/08/23/mozilla-makes-s...](https://blog.mozilla.org/press-
uk/2016/08/23/mozilla-makes-strategic-investment-in-cliqz-to-enable-privacy-
focused-search-innovation/)

~~~
mig39
Is that the same announcement? It's from August 2016.

I think this is the correct URL for the latest announcement in English:

[https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-
cliqz-i...](https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-in-
firefox/)

~~~
sctb
Thanks! We've updated the link from [https://blog.mozilla.org/press-
uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-i...](https://blog.mozilla.org/press-
uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-in-firefox/).

~~~
ktta
This looks like it is the new link.

------
smegel
> The surfing activities of those users who receive a Firefox version with
> Cliqz are sent to the Cliqz servers; including the URLs of the pages they
> visit.

Yeah thanks but no thanks.

~~~
482794793792894
Can you at least try to not rip sentences like these completely out of their
place? There's people here who won't bother to translate and you're abusing
that to make Mozilla look bad. The sentences afterwards:

"Cliqz uses different methods which should take care of removing sensitive
information, before it's sent out from Firefox. Additionally, Cliqz does not
create profiles of individual users and erases their IPs as soon as the data
has been collected. The code of Cliqz is publicly accessible [open-source
under MPLv2] [1] and a description of the used methods can be viewed here [in
English, 2]."

[1] [https://github.com/cliqz-oss/browser-
core/blob/master/module...](https://github.com/cliqz-oss/browser-
core/blob/master/modules/human-web/sources/human-web.es)

[2]
[https://gist.github.com/solso/423a1104a9e3c1e3b8d7c9ca14e885...](https://gist.github.com/solso/423a1104a9e3c1e3b8d7c9ca14e885e5)

~~~
clan
No abuse here. I honestly think you are missing the point of what is upsetting
people.

Nothing in your full quote makes it any more palatable.

No matter how nice your intentions are. No matter how transparent you are. No
matter how sincere your wish to contribute to a greater common good is. Do
not... Do not... Do simply not collect my browsing data. They are not yours to
have.

Whatever excuse is brought to the table I will take it as dishonesty. It can
come as no surprise that even the slightest privacy concerned users will take
offense of this. They simply hope it will fly under the radar of the common
users - because "we do good".

(Please do not take the "yours" as a personal attack - english is my second
language - some nuance has been lost in translation)

------
fiatjaf
Well, people who are pissed off should know that Chrome and Chromium have been
doing the same thing for a decade.

This doesn't diminish what Mozilla is doing, but at least you should yell at
Google too.

~~~
akkartik
I'd like to hold Mozilla to a higher standard. Sigh.

~~~
floatingatoll
We certainly hold _ourselves_ to a higher standard, no matter what people say
to the contrary. Endless never-ending arguments for a very long time about all
of this. Whatever else you think of us, at least remember that we not only
care but _agonize_ over this stuff at length.

~~~
kuschku
Then _why the fuck_ are you behaving just as horrible as Google in
exfiltrating user’s data, illegally, without opt-in?

How _the fuck_ do you deceive yourself into thinking you’re supporting the
privacy of your users by doing this, or the Google Analytics in the addon
settings?

~~~
floatingatoll
These are accusations, not questions. The framing of the sentences prevents
any useful reply.

