Is Mozilla Firefox violating our privacy? I do not think so

I just read a post in MuyLinux where MetalByte tells us about Health Report, a new functionality that has Firefox 21 that allows to send certain data and statistics from our team to the developers of Mozilla.

firefox_healthreport

As I mentioned to the author in that article, this tool did not arrive in a hidden way, far from it, since it was well specified as a novelty of this version, and it was talked about in the Mozilla's own blog.

In fact, if they open a tab and put:

about: healthreport

They will be able to realize that the data that this tool collects is not critical at all. Nor is it to be alarmed because it can be easily disabled if we click on the upper right (see image), or if we are going to Preferences »Advanced» Choice of data:

firefox_healthreport1

How i want Firefox improve, because I have activated the 3 options that you can see in the previous image, but none of you is obliged to do so.

I think Mozilla is one of the companies that most respects our privacy on the web, and they allow us to choose whether or not we want to offer our data in a very transparent way, and not as has happened with other large companies that now COF cof, I don't want to mention. What do you think?


The content of the article adheres to our principles of editorial ethics. To report an error click here!.

101 comments, leave yours

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

*

*

  1. Responsible for the data: Miguel Ángel Gatón
  2. Purpose of the data: Control SPAM, comment management.
  3. Legitimation: Your consent
  4. Communication of the data: The data will not be communicated to third parties except by legal obligation.
  5. Data storage: Database hosted by Occentus Networks (EU)
  6. Rights: At any time you can limit, recover and delete your information.

  1.   F3niX said

    Mac pandev? Oo a traitor. Haha it's game .. I have activated all of them on the pc. If that is what mozilla needs to improve.

    1.    pandev92 said

      Hhahahaha naaa XD, I'm little tux eating apples

      1.    Juan said

        You are a Judas !!

        ah really I write from windoz ..

        1.    pandev92 said

          hahahahhha XD, what does Steve Ballmer say?

          1.    eliotime3000 said

            Nonsense like a mediocre politician.

  2.   pandev92 said

    I have left them all activated, since it does not collect any worrisome private information.

    1.    elendilnarsil said

      The same I think. I don't see any problem about it.

  3.   Adam said

    I think that scabies with pleasure does not itch, although it is always scabies.

    By the way Mozilla has been doing that for a long time (telemetry, you know, that which is malicious when Chrome does it) and of course activated by default; just maybe now they've (re) released it as a "latest version new" with a cool new name.

    1.    elav said

      Open Firefox, and in a tab put: about: telemetry, you will tell me that there is there that affects privacy. 😉

      1.    Adam said

        Yes, yes, I know that scabies with pleasure does not itch.

        There are people who do not see a privacy problem with the information collected by Facebook, or Google. And there are people who do.

        And that's what they show you with.

        By the way, in the bad guy Chrome is the same, but Chrome is "bad", the mange you do not like.

        1.    proper said

          Adam:
          Scabies that do not itch or opinion with taste to absolute irrefutable truth?

          1.    Adam said

            Clearly the first, because the judgments are according to the sinner and not according to sin.

          2.    proper said

            Are you sure? because your comments have airs the latter.

    2.    Juan said

      It is not comparable, Google is a software company that makes money from databases of private information, and Mozilla is not.

      1.    Adam said

        You don't seem to realize that Mozilla makes its hundreds of millions of dollars from the same place as Google.

        1.    cat said

          Mozilla is actually funded by Google, in any case I'm still somewhat paranoid and I disabled the health report and the bug reports.

  4.   MetalByte said

    Go if it took you a short time to publish a reply haha, you have not given me time to answer you in the MuyLinux comments, so I tell you here what I was going to tell you there: I have not been alarmed at any time and I did not intend to cause alarm . Come on, I started by saying it was a lukewarm criticism (don't stay in the headline like others do, for the love of Tux !!).

    In the launch announcement we already talked about the Health Report, I already knew that option, so it is not about reading more or less, but rather that, it seems, in some cases it is activated by defecation without consulting the user. It is with this behavior that I do not agree with, not with the data that it transmits, that I have already said that it is not sensitive. In fact, I liked the feature a lot and I have left it activated, but first ask me what I want to do! I only ask for that.

    A greeting!

    1.    elav said

      Replica? Anyway, replicas affect SEO xDDDD

      I do not think that it is actually activated by default, or maybe it comes by default and depending on the user's configuration, it is deactivated. For now, it does not seem to me that, although it comes by default, it is a problem towards our privacy since the data it sends does not affect us, it seems to me.

      However, I understand your point of view and I respect it, as it could have been with something more delicate, although coming from Mozilla: I DOUBT IT !! These people fight for an open web and privacy is something they have always respected, not like Facebook, Google, Microsoft or Apple.

      Anyway, thanks for answering 😛

      1.    Adam said

        Yes, yes, they have always respected privacy, like when they included this non-standard thing to track people's clicks because $ itio $ web $ asked for it.
        http://www.kriptopolis.org/node/1707

        Or like when they boycotted the DNT because someone else was taking more glory from it by making more people protected.

        Friend, there are better religions to idolize companies, the worst thing is that in the end they go about their business and manipulate people with marketing.

        1.    elav said

          I am not idolizing anyone, simply of all the companies that I mentioned Mozilla is the most reliable, at least for me. However, citing the example you give, where does the famous "ping" affect privacy? And that's what I'm talking about: Privacy. However, I refer you to the second comment of that article:

          The first point is that the claim that downloaded users have found the feature is totally false. The design of this feature has been carried out openly within the framework of WhatWG in its process of defining HTML 5. The bugs to add this feature have been created at bugzilla.mozilla.org. When the code has finally been added, it has also been reflected in systems that check for bugs that are corrected like this blog: http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/2006/01/11/2006-01-11-trunk-builds/
          But what has unleashed all the controversy was precisely a message on a blog that reported on its operation but people have been unable to follow the links and read exactly the reasoning and operation of the pings.
          Linking to slashdot is like linking to a chicken coop, no one reads beyond the headlines and everyone edits the movie, so saying "a lively controversy" is the same as saying nothing.

          From there we began to see personal opinions of the editor who has been unable to read the seven paragraphs that make up the ping specification and that say two things absolutely and clearly:
          Users must have the necessary preferences to be able to deactivate this feature when they deem it appropriate:
          User agents should allow the user to adjust this behavior, for example in conjunction with a setting that disables the sending of HTTP Referrer headers. Based on the user's preferences, UAs may either ignore the ping attribute altogether, or selectively ignore URIs in the list (eg ignoring any third-party URIs).

          And that the user has to be notified every time they are going to use a link that pings:
          When the ping attribute is present, user agents should clearly indicate to the user that following the hyperlink will also cause secondary requests to be sent in the background, possibly including listing the actual target URIs.

          😉

          1.    Eye said

            Do you want to know where it affects privacy? Well, calm down, I'll explain it to you 😉 All these options are accompanied by a "unique identifier", recognized by Mozilla itself. In theory, this identifier is to be able to associate the reports with the PC. BUT, it is exactly the tactic Google uses to track Chrome users. To this he adds that the tool Mozilla uses to manage and send reports is "BreakPad", created and developed by Google itself.

            If you want to see clearly that there is something "strange" in all this, do this test: uncheck all the boxes, close Firefox and go to your user's folder where you have the Firefox configuration. Delete the one that says "Crash Reports." Start Firefox again and you will see how the folder resurrects like a Phoenix, with its unique identifier renewed inside it.

            1.    elav said

              MMM interesting. My question is, how is Mozilla able to know that the identifier of my PC belongs to Ernesto Acosta? Although there is something I do not understand. I doubt very much that this identifier comes in the tar.gz that we downloaded from Mozilla's FTP, since we would all have the same identifier. Maybe someone comes and tells me that it might be that I generate randomly, well ... if I delete the .mozilla folder in my / home, it is impossible for Firefox to put the same ID for me again, or am I wrong?

              What I'm saying is that it seems to me (maybe I'm wrong) that the information Mozilla uses is not the same that Google uses, much less for the same purposes. In other words, I very much doubt that this information is to be sold to third parties or to determine how searches are organized from your browser. But I tell you, I could be very wrong.

              Thanks for the comment. I have learned something new.


          2.    Eye said

            That something affects privacy does not mean that they will know your name and bank account 😉 The unique identifier is randomly generated on each PC. That's why it's called unique 🙂 ​​If you don't delete that folder (99% of the people), it can give you very "juicy" information about the history of that browser on that PC. If you delete it, it will generate a new one and start over. That shouldn't do it if you turn off reporting, but it does. That's the problem.

            Regarding your trust in them, it is that: Trust. The truth is that neither you nor I know what their actual use is. What we both know is that money is a very "sweet tooth" 😀 and if Google pays Mozilla many millions of dollars, it may not be just for having it as the default search engine 😉

            By the way, who is Ernesto Acosta? 😀 just kidding 😀

            1.    elav said

              Yes, we agree on that .. of course we don't really know what they do for sure, but hey, based on the track record of some companies, I think Mozilla is pretty reliable ..

              By the way, if I tell you who Ernesto Acosta is, I would have to kill you XDD


          3.    Adam said

            Well, that same thing, it is the most "reliable" "for you. At the same actions, a company has a blank check and the others do not because they are pure evil. That sounds like an excessive love for something to me, which blinds common sense that has no problem working on other cases where that "love" is not present.

            The last straw is that you don't see bad the "ping".
            That is, that any website can make a record of where we click in a totally transparent and anti-standard way is good.

            I remember when there have been people who have shouted to heaven when sites like Google do that and that is totally visible by redirects with javascript and a lot of ink has been written about avoiding this "violation of privacy". Possibly if I search here I will find on that subject and perhaps even how to avoid that redirect.

            1.    elav said

              Did you read how Ping works or did it work? It seems not.

              Well, yes, Mozilla is more reliable for me than the company that makes the Operating System from which you comment, more than Apple, more than Facebook, because removing the happy ping and the examples you have put, adding them all, they don't even do the half of the violations that the aforementioned corporations have committed.


          4.    Adam said

            Yes, I read it.
            - Allows the tracking of user clicks.
            - Ping a website.
            - It is activated by default.
            - It's not standard.
            - And it is put in by request made with briefcases and tickets.
            The rest are typical minimizations of those who want to cover up the shit of their partiality.

            The "and you more" is a very bad fallacy. That others are "worse" (from your point of view, of course) does not make another (a white dove) reliable just because he is "less bad."
            If something is "medium trustworthy" it is NOT Trustworthy.

            And this is just evidence of how many shady things they can do or have done, behind people's backs or not. Until the moment I put this on you, "you didn't know anything." Can you assure me, as you are doing, that there is nothing more murky in his record?
            It is clear that they have ALREADY been able to sell their "principles" for money, they can continue to do so or have done it more.

            In the case of "the operating system company" that I use with simple suspicion, it is enough for you, even to put it eternally above this other company of which I put evidence.

            1.    elav said

              And why are you right and the other user with his comment not?


        2.    Adam said

          By the way, you quote a comment totally out of place (and a stinking Mozi-religious fanboy from here to there justifying the unjustifiable) since it does not attack the bottom line and that in passing is more than contested.

          A company that lives off the story of "loving the privacy of users" CANNOT out of the blue make a nonsense like that which does the opposite. If it were anyone else who doesn't bitch, that speech would be "acceptable."

          WhatWG does not matter to me because WhatWG does NOT define standards and even if it were, it is still a tracking method put there thanks to the request of Don Dinero, which is very bad when it comes to Mozilla that lives off the aforementioned demagogic speech.

          Nor should it matter that "can be disabled" because if that's what we go in Chrome too and the "pro privacy" are not kind to Chrome. In fact in Google they can also be deactivated, here a long time ago I saw a post where they indicated how.

          That it came activated is very bad because "the one that protects the privacy of the users" turns out that it tracks by default and only after you put your hand and polish it is that it is "good for the user" and come on, that's how they all would What, then, is "the chosen one" of evangelizers? Not to mention that the common user does not even know, then those who are guided by the discourse of the evangelizers about "the chosen protector of users" would be even more scammed than in IE.

          With Mozilla something similar happens to when Ubuntu does something wrong, or Linux or the sect of the day; There is no shortage of defenders who go on to apply a special sieve to justify things that in other circumstances they would condemn with all their might.

          1.    elav said

            Let's see, before continuing with this sterile debate, what do you have against Mozilla? Did Google or some other company pay you to defend them, and discredit Mozilla? Because you talk about fans but it seems to me that this topic alters you a bit ..

          2.    Adam said

            Your answer is typical. If someone says something against the holy cow on duty, then one must be paid by someone.
            And the silliest thing is that you point to Google, like Mozilla doesn't dance to Google's music.

            You said something wrong and (perhaps due to lack of information) you recommended with carte blanche something that should not be recommended in such a way.
            I respond by saying true things and putting references.

            My goal is that things are judged as they are, no one has to be treated as a sacred cow because everyone has a large straw tail, but that treatment of a sacred cow is received only by one, not very clean like the rest. Saying things clearly without idolatry is not hating anyone. The "if you are not with me you are against me" is only a matter of religious fanatics and political warmongers.

            1.    elav said

              @Adam:

              I simply ask why you are acting as the counterpart of those religious fanatics that you mention. You show a slight hatred towards Mozilla, however fair you want to be.


          3.    eliotime3000 said

            I calmly support Iceweasel and Firefox (although it is on several computers that are not mine and this comment makes me embarrassed every time I comment from Windows XP / Vista / 7 for work, study or whatever), in addition to Chromium for what which is maintained by communities of programmers who are dedicated to it (because I use Chromium instead of Chrome on Windows even if the User-agent of a thousand demons tells me that it is Google Chrome of the future),

            It would be worse if you were using products like those of the Chinese company Tencent Holding such as the Tencent Browser (only in Mandarin Chinese) or the local version of Tencent QQ (thank goodness that the international version does not include the rougeware that comes with attached backdoor), the Facebook application service itself (its like-recognition algorithm is way more terrifying than Skynet) and the SmartScreen that comes with Windows NT 6.X (Vista / 7/8).

          4.    staff said

            @Adam.
            I'm not saying you do, but from the effusive way you defend your position it "seems" that you have vested interests.
            That's why it's hard to believe when you say "you just want things to be played as they are." It seems that what you want is for Mozilla to be judged like Google (for being the companies that you repeated the most in your comments) and thus, it is not "how things are."
            1.- Some Mozilla actions (and the context in which they are developed) may in any case be comparable, but not equivalent or comparable, therefore Mozilla cannot be judged the same as Google.
            2.- Perhaps something more important that you have not seen either is that it is NOT activated by default.
            See the comments (here and in muylinux, where the controversy arose) and you will see how many people asked us if we wanted to use this new function as soon as we opened the program, before browsing any page.
            If some did happen to see the ad or according to the packaging of the distro did not show it, it is a problem not attributable to Mozilla.

  5.   facundokd said

    I want that theme! +1

    1.    eliotime3000 said

      Thank you very much for the chroming, but I prefer it to keep the semi-beveled Opera style on its tabs.

  6.   diazepan said

    Apparently Iceweasel decided not to include it.

    1.    tavo said

      indeed, in iceweasel 21 it is deactivated

      1.    eliotime3000 said

        It seems correct to me that such a "trivial" function was deactivated. Anyway, both in Windows and in GNU / Linux I use less Google Chrome and Opera, in addition I use Chromium (the nightly build in Windows as you will see in my user agent which is quite futuristic with Chrome | Ubuntu community build or the one that comes in the repo that is in Debian).

        Anyway, Iceweasel has inspired me much more confidence than Firefox (I don't know if it will be due to idiosyncrasy or because of how great it runs on Debian).

        1.    tavo said

          Another thing to note is that the crash reports folder is not created in Iceweasel. It seems that Debian packagers Disable some dubious options, I'm glad it is.

          1.    eliotime3000 said

            Now I understand why Iceweasel is slightly faster than Firefox.

            Although a project would have to be made so that Iceweasel not only stays in Debian, but is also in other distros such as Arch and other systems such as the infamous Windows.

    2.    Emmanuel said

      That's right, I guess because of Debian's love-hate relationship with Mozilla ...

  7.   edo said

    Not similar to what Ubuntu does? I ask nothing more?

    1.    elav said

      No idea what Ubuntu does.

      1.    st0rmt4il said

        Perhaps the user "edo" refers to the issue of his lens with Amazon and the supposed spyware that runs in Ubuntu ..

        1.    elav said

          I repeat, I have no idea how it works 😀

    2.    eliotime3000 said

      No. Ubuntu included in its software-center a user tracking system made by Amazon.

  8.   Garbage_Killer said

    no matter how active it is deactivated alone

  9.   Juan said

    In windows if it warns

    1.    eliotime3000 said

      Surely, there was a bug when it was compiled for UNIX-derived OSs (BSD, Linux).

      Now, they are preparing an update that patches this bug.

  10.   Curefox said

    Well, in my case in Opensuse with Gnome shell, when updating Firefox having the Mozilla repo activated when opening it, I wonder about this new option and activate all 3.
    So I don't see the problem as the information being sent is not personal at all.

    1.    elav said

      Well, the problem is that some have not seen the question pass 😀

  11.   st0rmt4il said

    Ummmm ... disable it because I don't consider it useful ..

    Regards!

  12.   pandev92 said

    It is probably a bug that makes it appear and does not appear after the user's second, what will he do, in mac osx, he asked me at first ...

    1.    elav said

      I still think that it is a problem in the configuration of each one.

  13.   Petercheco said

    Hi Elav, after following the post all day I ask myself the following. Why do you suddenly use Konqueror? I think that now it makes no sense to change to another browser since you use the one you use, everyone uses tools to follow users to a greater or lesser extent ... :).

    With what Firefox does, I do not think there is something really worrying and the fact that the folders are recreated in the Mozilla folder on your home even though the information collection functions are disabled is a normal thing since Firefox does a check of the same at each start. This already happened with Firefox 1O (see advanced options in Debian Wheezy's Iceweasel 10 where it clearly says send browser data). The important thing is that these options can be disabled :).

    1.    elav said

      I was testing Konqueror 4.10.2 enhancements.

      1.    Petercheco said

        Me too 🙂

        1.    petercheco said

          Well, I just switched to Firefox 21, since IceWeasel 10.0.12 is a bit old .. Up to CentOS 6.4 it has Firefox 17 .. It is the only downside that I find Debian Wheezy with Icedove that has the same problem: D .

          1.    tavo said

            Adding the Mozilla Debian repository keeps Iceweasel updated in its latest version, it takes a couple of days to update as soon as a new Firefox release comes out

          2.    Garbage_Killer said

            petercheco better upload it to sid, and incidentally mozilla debian 😉

          3.    eliotime3000 said

            I've been on Iceweasel 21 for a long time using the mozilla.debian.net backport (and it doesn't affect the stability of the system itself).

          4.    seachello said

            Here's a blog post describing how to update Iceweasel to its latest version.

            https://blog.desdelinux.net/actualizar-iceweasel-en-debian-wheezy/

          5.    Anonymous said

            @seachello, that method should no longer be used, now that Wheezy is the stable branch it has its own backports for Iceweasel in http://mozilla.debian.net/ with its proper indications described there.

          6.    seachello said

            @ Anonymous Even if you use the new testing version, jessie?

          7.    Anonymous said

            @seachello, even if it is for Wheezy it is sure to be valid for Jessie for a while since both are almost the same at the moment ... already in a short time when they will be differentiated, they will surely add the indications for the testing branch.

      2.    eliotime3000 said

        Good thing they don't pass the word to me when my comments usually show that I use Google Chrome 29 on Windows (actually I use the Chromium nightly build, but its user agent always says that I use Chrome and that comes by default).

        Iceweasel has those options disabled, because if I activate them, Mozilla will detect errors because I use Iceweasel (although I don't think so because there are also other forks like the GNU IceCat that would bounce the complaints for the obvious rejection of the flash player) and above , they would recommend that I change the user agent so that there are "no post errors".

        1.    eliotime3000 said

          And I confirm it: I went to my favorite browser and the tab that they have put in that screenshot does not appear in Iceweasel.

  14.   tammuz said

    as they said up there all browsers do theirs

    1.    eliotime3000 said

      Long live the forks!

  15.   ferchmetal said

    I don't see any inconvenience to that either, from version 3.6 of firefox and before! I have always been a follower of my favorite browser and I do not change it for anything, I hope they continue to improve for the good of all of us who use it, and it is becoming quite heavy I have noticed ...

  16.   Juan Carlos said

    I was thinking (yes, yes, sometimes I do) in the discussion between @elav and @adan, and I decided to transfer the fundamentals of one and the other to the operating system itself. Suppose I just got to know Linux, barely sticking my head out of "the window," and I read all of this. I could ask you then, who guarantees me that the OS developers do not spy on me? That is, for example in Fedora, with a simple "yum update" the update system knows which packages I have outdated and then, it asks me if I want to update, and with saying "yes" it starts the process, and all this having enabled Root … So what guarantees me that during this process someone is not collecting data from my computer? Mmmmm….

    1.    Morpheus said

      The answer is in "the Code"

    2.    elav said

      Interesting…

      Do you know what happens? And be careful, which is what I think, that popular OS and applications always have someone who tries to discredit them or at least find a fault with them.

      If Fedora put "something" in its updates to collect information from its users, I'm sure one of the possibilities of it being "open" would allow "someone" to notice it and spread it out.

      The same goes for Mozilla, Google and of course, we left Microsoft out for obvious reasons.

      1.    Juan Carlos said

        The topic is, does »someone» search the code for something like that? Or are we so convinced of the philosophy of the community that we blindly believe that this is impossible to happen?

        1.    elav said

          I don't put my hands on the fire, but I'm sure that "someone" should always be aware of that. We are millions, at least 1 can exist 😀

          1.    Eye said

            Well, I'm not so sure 😉 As someone very wise said:

            If you want to hide something, leave it in plain sight.

            Which means that, among thousands of lines of code, it is easy for something to go unnoticed. And leaving it in plain sight gives that false sense of security.

          2.    Juan said

            There is always the possibility, but it is unlikely

        2.    George said

          Changes are easily verified with diffs. Which according to the principles of free software, the original code + the changes must be included. It is something like wikipedia, where you can see the contributions one by one and if someone vandalizes, reverse them. Also called "meritocracy" in practically all major distros and projects (debian, mozilla, kernel, etc). A person cannot contribute code "anonymously", and generally when they are new developers they are observed (in the case of the kernel, linus himself starts to review the contributions). Another case is in debian the contributors register their changes (diffs) with their name and surname (and generally a university or company in their @mail), and a GPG key, they must accept the social contract and be admitted. There have been cases of "insecurity" that have dotted distros like tuquito (not to hide) ... but they have damaged their own reputation, which, as in real life, cannot be cleaned.

          1.    elav said

            That's right .. It is very rare that an "open" application does not have this type of control, and much more rare is that someone does not notice when something strange happens.

          2.    Juan Carlos said

            I understand, but I am referring to those directly responsible for the distribution, as happened for example with the issue of Mint and Banshee, of course, and of course tuquito.

            1.    elav said

              But notice that when it went from Mint to the moment the alarm went off ...


          3.    Juan Carlos said

            @elav: Yes, that's true. Anyway, I'm not trying to put together a discussion with this, but rather to expose a scenario like this and see how privacy is really guaranteed from the distributions themselves.

            Yesterday I made this point in a couple of communities on Google+, but the responses were scarce (two), so I am in the dilemma that there are several possibilities:
            1) That not many people are very clear about the topic;
            2) That my proposal is totally stupid and that's why they don't bother to answer;
            3) there is a lot of fanatic around who considers this possibility as a sacrilege on my part for having raised it;
            4) The three things together… ..

            1.    elav said

              Hahaha .. Man, nothing happens, the debate is always good.


  17.   Tavo said

    Note that the "data selection" tab does not exist in Iceweasel (options menu / advanced). Definitely the Debian packagers consider this a violation of privacy. Gentlemen, I appreciate Firefox a lot but I appreciate Debian more, besides being an excellent distribution is synonymous with coherence

    1.    Morpheus said

      Iceweasel is supposed to be a non-Mozilla fork of Firefox. What are you going to send Iceweasel statistics for?

      1.    sieg84 said

        still FireFox

      2.    eliotime3000 said

        The first thing that comes to mind is trolling, the second thing is to make Mozilla also look at how the forks perform and that the community strive to promote the diversity of forks that there is in Firefox (not everything is red panda in this life ).

      3.    elav said

        Well said morpheus. There is no point in having that option if in the end they are not going to send data to Mozilla. It is for no other reason.

        1.    eliotime3000 said

          If it is a fork that aims to distinguish itself from Mozilla by being more stable and with fewer bugs, then it is fine in my opinion (in Iceweasel, the responses to heavy processes is faster than in Firefox, which I thank those who forked Firefox for good).

    2.    eliotime3000 said

      The same I say. I use Firefox on Windows, but on Debian, I'd rather keep Iceweasel up to date than use Firefox (if Arch has the updated iceweasel in its repos, then I'll install it).

      Regarding performance, the difference is not much if we use the same version as Firefox and Iceweasel (separately, because if we open them both, then, there will be confusion in the processes).

      Anyway, iceweasel appeals to me much more than Firefox. Hopefully I can make an unofficial port for Windows and Mac (in fact, I'm already up to the tarballs of so many red panda).

      1.    Eye said

        On Windows you can use Pale Moon, which is based on Firefox and doesn't have the clutter of bug reporting, just like Ice Weasel on Debian. In addition, it is more optimized and has a 64 Bit version 😉

        1.    eliotime3000 said

          Good data, although I would have liked it to include all the languages ​​to choose and the installer to open according to the Windows language (it should be remembered that in Linux distros this is easy since the dependencies solve everything and we can relieve ourselves of doing similar manual process, which many Windowsers do not appreciate).

          Anyway, the Pale Moon is a version more backward than the official version of Firefox, which I have no problems with Iceweasel (even the Arch fork called Parabola has the Iceweasel up to date).

  18.   seachello said

    Having read the post in Muylinux and also this one with its comments, I think there is a bit of confusion and it is not clear to me if the option to send this data is activated by default or it is not and there is a bug that causes it in some users yes it is. So I'm not going to judge whether Mozilla has performed well or not, but I'm going to judge the fact itself.

    I believe that any feature that involves sending data (especially data collection) to a server and is not local should warn and empower the user. This for several reasons. In the first place, because the user must have the freedom to choose whether or not they want to share information generated by their actions. In other words, it would be like informed consent. On the other hand, I also believe that it is important because it helps the user to become aware that the control of their privacy is important (they will already choose if they want to share it or not, but it is important), at the same time that it makes people aware in favor of collaboration in the project.

    In summary, although if it was activated by default it would not be such a big mistake as to motivate a change of browser, I also believe that there is a correct way to proceed and trust in a company is not enough to make it correct. Mozilla has my confidence, and this may make me believe that it is more a mistake than a will to spy, but it does not change that I believe that the correct option is to ask the user for consent.

    1.    eliotime3000 said

      I still use Firefox. What's more, I am against the data collection that is practiced in many other browsers (even Chromium is not saved).

      If you prefer to use a completely free version of Firefox, then use GNU IceCat (damn the flash player and other proprietary plugins, reject huge cookies ...).

  19.   chuki7 said

    SIMPLE NEGLECT? Maybe yes or no ... time will tell if they keep doing it.