Additionally, the AntRank feature that uses this tracking can be disabled.
As the person who implemented Private Browsing describes:
Private Browsing aims to help you make sure that your web browsing activities don't leave any trace on your own computer. It is very important to note that Private Browsing is not a tool to keep you anonymous from websites or your ISP, or for example protect you from all kinds of spyware applications which use sophisticated techniques to intercept your online traffic. Private Browsing is only about making sure that Firefox doesn't store any data which can be used to trace your online activities, no more, no less.
Disclosure is good. Homogeneity and coercion are bad.
This is why the governments of the world need to implement do not track laws.
Not necessarily. There's no point in using regulation to preserve competition between buggy whip manufacturers. Creative destruction puts an end to many industries. And in some cases, its death throes can easily look like a market failure rather than market success.
In the end, who decides if it's a buggy whip industry? And who decides if a corporation is an oligopoly? Remember, it's likely that in any mature, regulated industry, the regulators are probably industry insiders themselves (see "Regulatory Capture", https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Regulatory_ca... ).
Not all regulation is bad, just like not all effects of slavish adherence to free market ideals are good. The free market is good in aggregate, but there are many cases where government intervention is beneficial.
If Apple were caught doing this, there would be a hearing in front of congress.
What that entails:
"When performing a preliminary review, editors will review the source code for security issues and major policy violations, but will not install the add-on to test functionality in most cases. Preliminary review will be granted unless a security vulnerability or major policy violation is discovered."
Extensions marked 'experimental' are not fully reviewed. Which is why they probably left this plugin marked as 'experimental'.
You can't blame the users since they are installing from a Mozilla page and trusting the brand. I hope this triggers a review of those procedures at Mozilla, since I would consider sending back every site you visit a 'major policy violation'. Very scary.
Edit: they may also want to change the 'experimental' policy and set a time limit to how long an extension can remain experimental, and not list them in the default directory unless users (more advanced users) specifically seek out experimental extensions
I definitely agree with setting a time limit, if feasible.
The community rating contradicts norton's rating.... sigh.
Edit: Further code browsing points to the "rank" feature. They rank all URLs that are http/https and the host isn't "localhost". I'm guessing, but if you turn of ranking in the preferences, it will stop logging your page views.
Google thinks the name is Dima Sidorenko and offers up this guy who is a programmer:
Unless it is Sidorchenko and Dima is a nickname in which case "Dmitriy Sidorchenko" might get better results.
The name Sidorchenko sounds Ukrainian.
Ant.com collects non-personally-identifying information when you are visiting our site or using our software applications, this infomation made available typically from web browsers and servers. Some of the infomation type is: the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of the web page from wich you came, the date and the time for each page you view, settings such as browser languages, etc.
Ant.com also collects infomation made public to us that can be considered personally identifyable, such as your internet protocol (IP) address. Ant.com does not use such information to identify its visitors and does not disclose such information.
I'm also fairly sure that one can find personally "identifyable" information from URLs that go far beyond mere IP addresses.
Why is ant.com domain info privacy protected anyhow? Seems pretty fishy to me.
Also, this is enough to sue, isn't it?
From the Mozilla Add-Ons FAQ @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/faq
Are add-ons safe to install?
Unless clearly marked otherwise, add-ons available from this gallery have been checked and approved by Mozilla's team of editors and are safe to install. We recommend that you only install approved add-ons. If you wish to install unapproved add-ons or add-ons from third-party websites, use caution as these add-ons may harm your computer or violate your privacy. Learn more about our approval process
This add-on was marked otherwise. (Well, according to the claims above.)
You can definitely argue that having unvetted add-ons on the site at all is bad, but your particular point isn't relevant.
And thanks to Simon, I am having a hard enough time with my work and personal to do lists, testing all of my tools for their extranet behaviors is not something I look forward to adding to them...
Are you saying you don't have a generic rule in place, and are instead using Little Snitch to approve calls to port 80 for every new domain you visit? If so, that'd certainly work, but it seems more than a little impractical.
Yes. And I do the same with cookies.
I do allow connections (and cookies) permanently to "trusted sites", but that's the exception rather than the rule.
Firefox extensions are just plain zip files, I wonder why he hasn't checked the code.
From their feature list:
"Easy to use : when a video is detected, the download button becomes clickable." - i.e. our plugin sends all URLs to us for analysis, we respond telling the plugin whether to activate the button
"Integrated Traffic Rank indicator for all the sites you visit." - i.e. we need a way of measuring unique visits to everything
Still, interesting, and good on this guy for bringing it into the public eye.
Not that it's a good idea.
Anyhow, what is typed on the URL bar is only a small subset of sites visited.
I don't really know of anything else Chrome does by default that "tracks your history" like this addon does.
"“Beware of spyware. If you can, use the Firefox browser.” - USA Today"
"Privacy and Security
Built with your security in mind, Firefox keeps your computer safe from malicious spyware by not loading harmful ActiveX controls. A comprehensive set of privacy tools keep your online activity your business."
While that's technically correct - Firefox couldn't (can't?) load ActiveX controls, therefore it could't load harmful ActiveX controls - the Firefox extensions system has permitted installation of executable code for a long time, if not since its inception. Since that's what ActiveX is, more or less, Firefox has never been any more secure in that respect than e.g. Internet Explorer.
Like Apple products, as Firefox becomes more popular (and therefore a jucier attack target) there will be more malware that targets it.
Edit: Fix typo.
I'm presenting some pertinent history and tying it to the recent Apple malware news, which has been heavily discussed here.