In the digital age, protecting your personal information might seem like an impossible task. We’re here to help.
This is a community for sharing news about privacy, posting information about cool privacy tools and services, and getting advice about your privacy journey.
You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:
Check out our website at privacyguides.org before asking your questions here. We’ve tried answering the common questions and recommendations there!
Want to get involved? The website is open-source on GitHub, and your help would be appreciated!
This community is the “official” Privacy Guides community on Lemmy, which can be verified here. Other “Privacy Guides” communities on other Lemmy servers are not moderated by this team or associated with the website.
Moderation Rules:
Additional Resources:
From my understanding of their implementation, you have to give a Mozilla server all of your traffic history, and then they feed a curated, sanitize topic list of that activity to the advertisers.
So now we’re trusting Mozilla with your full browsing history, that seems like a really bad idea. Even if I love and trust Mozilla, I don’t want to add yet another thing to the critical path
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution
https://hackertalks.com/comment/4359282
How are they different from any other VPN service or even uBlock? They all have access to your browsing info and can potentially use it for profit.
https://www.privacyguides.org/en/basics/vpn-overview/
You think I don’t know how a VPN works?
I think you misunderstood what I meant.
If you have syncing on, you are already trusting Mozilla with your history.
deleted by creator
You are correct. My mistake.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/features/sync/
Oh yeah, agreed, if your syncing then your security model doesn’t include worrying about tracking.
Source.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ppm-dap#name-security-considerations
The explicitly say if the aggregator is controlled by hostile party, and in my scenario that would be Mozilla, they could have full access to the deanonymized data. It’s out of scope for their protocol.
And while the DAP draft is nice, it doesn’t change my threat model, it just introduces extra steps. As the absolute hunger of AI inputs for models have shown us, if a company has the capability to get data, they will. Mozilla has demonstrated they are hungry for data and money. I don’t want to give them the capability