[y-c-o-m-b]

I exclusively use private browsing, but I know that doesn't do much in preventing tracking, so it's nice to see this finally starting to roll out.

The fact that I have to go to great lengths to browse anonymously - and companies desperately try to circumvent my genuine decision to opt out of their tracking - tells me everything I need to know about those companies. Words like sleezy, shady, and predatory come to mind.

I would love to see this taken one step further and have states/countries prevent companies from tracking me altogether if I reject their cookies, but I fear it's more likely those companies will lobby to prevent Firefox from protecting us.

[tlavoie]

The "Temporary Containers" extension is great here, allowing pretty easy compromise between different buckets of sites. I'll have some personal ones that I log into, others go specifically into a snoop container, and the rest get temporary ones that evaporate when closed. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/temporary-con...

[modin]

stoically, the maintainer and creator of this extension unfortunately passed in early 2023. There's a new fork available[0], linked from github[1].

I briefly discussed this extension and how to proceed after the passing of a maintainer with Mozilla staff in their Extensions and People teams at FOSDEM this year, but there was no real procedures in place at the time of our chat.

[0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/temporary-con...

[1]: https://github.com/stoically/temporary-containers/issues/634

[baranul]

Yes, that's truly sad that he passed. It is fortunate that he left that open-source project, where others can pick up the torch. As the forks continue, it becomes a small tribute to him.

[tlavoie]

Oh, damn, good to know thanks! Sad news indeed.

[tgv]

You could try to use profiles instead of private browsing. It keeps things separated.

[notafox]

Also profiles can be configured and used with CLI, no need for UI (old or new).

    ./firefox -CreateProfile "profile-name /home/user/.mozilla/firefox/profile-path/"
    ./firefox -profile "/home/user/.mozilla/firefox/profile-path/"

And, you can run it directly, no need to launch default firefox profile:

Given that /usr/bin/firefox is just a shell script, you can

    - create a copy of it, say, /usr/bin/firefox-hn
    - adjust the relevant line, adding the -profile argument

If you use an icon to run firefox (say, /usr/share/applications/firefox.desktop), you'll need to do copy/adjust line for the icon.

[chimeracoder]

> Also profiles can be configured and used with CLI, no need for UI (old or new).

AFAIK, they can only be created at the command line, not configured. If you want to do things like change default settings or install extensions from the Firefox Add-On store, you can't really do that at the command line.

You can do that by mucking around in the user.js file and manually adding .xpi files to the extensions/ subfolder, but that's probably stretching the definition of "done at the command-line" since most people aren't creating Puppet modules to manage Firefox profiles.

Perhaps someone knows an easier way to do this, though.

[unethical_ban]

Instead of needing to know scripting for a core feature, it would be nice if I could tell the program to ask me every time I open a new window which profile that window used. Right click would have an option like their containers "opening new profile window" .

[panarky]

Right-click on the Firefox icon and choose "Open Profile Manager".

Or add "-p" to the startup command to do the same thing without right-clicking:

    firefox -p

[skydhash]

Better if they would allow some configuration like toggling js by domain. uBlock is great, but I would like first party support.

[HackerThemAll]

NoScript extension...

[mihaaly]

I am dreaming for righteous 'small' employees too, those who carry out the dishonourable practice of implementing privacy intrusion following instructions, for money. Corporates are built by thousands of ignorant grey workers.

[floxy]

Tor? Although I wish there was a way to make a reddit account.

[godelski]

You might want to check out the Mullvad browser. They work with Tor and are based on Firefox. It won't connect you to the Tor network but still

[DANmode]

Library

[kalaksi]

> I would love to see this taken one step further and have states/countries prevent companies from tracking me altogether if I reject their cookies

You're in luck since EU's GDPR is about informing users of PII harvesting and consent in general (among other things). So the banner is not only about cookies. And I think nowadays there are similar regulations elsewhere.

[drnick1]

The last thing I want to see is more banners that don't actually do anything for your privacy. Let's be real, websites/companies will do whatever they want with your data, the banner is just for show.

[kalaksi]

I was just pointing out to parent that it already happens...

[recursive4]

Out of curiousity, how would you steelman the argument that fingerprinting is no different than a store owner, standing behind the counter, taking note of the faces of who enters his store, and maintaining a log?

[sudobash1]

To make that analogy closer to the Internet reality, I would say that Internet tracking is more like a cabal of shop-keepers, librarians, neighbors, utility pole workers, and so on who are keeping track of all the faces, all their habits, what they look at, what they say, who they interact with, and share this information amongst themselves, recording it in perpetuity. They also share details with the police and anyone who cares to purchase them.

When you talk about a "shopkeeper" it gives it a small community charm. The Internet is anything but that.

[rolandog]

Exactly. The "shopkeeper" is cross-correlating my sleeping habits, my browsing data, 27 data-leaks, my credit score history, the proximity of other devices and WiFis, the pictures my in-laws posted of a get-together, sentiment analysis of voice messages...

All while showing me 2 advertisements before I enter the store, trying to trick me into clicking a mysterious "track me more" button while I try to get toothpaste, and never lowering the price of pasta for me because my wife mentioned on a post that she loves eating Italian.

And he's the town's least creepy shopkeeper.

[MichaelNolan]

The difference is scale and intent. A mom and pop store owner “remembering” my face versus big tech tracking is like comparing a nosy neighbor to the CIA.

One of them might peer out their window, the other will infiltrate every aspect of your life. One of them is bored, the other has no qualms about doing significant harm to you if it serves their interests.

[godelski]

I'm fairly confident I could sue that store owner for stalking if they were logging every time I entered that store and left, along with all my activities.

I'm absolutely positive I could if they were getting other store owners to help them track me.

What I don't understand is why this is unacceptable if they do it to a single person but perfectly normal if they do it to all their customers. IMO that should make things worse, not better.

Let's put it this way. You'd get a restraining order against someone if they followed you around all day, logging when you woke up, ate, who you talked with (even if they don't hear the conversation), where you went, and when you went to bed. That's clearly stalking, right? So why us it suddenly acceptable when it's being done by some guy named Mark who is stalking a billion people instead of just one?

We clearly differentiate this from being a regular customer at a store. If I'm a regular at Joe's Corner Market and get a sandwich every Wednesday for lunch then he remembers me because we're talking face to face and making conversation. It's personal. There's clear consent in what I'm sharing and there's a clear expectation that Joe isn't going to use that information to manipulate me or follow me around town. Our interaction is limited to the store and maybe bumping into each other on the street. It's clearly not stalking, we're just friendly. The same way your partner might know about when you wake up, go to sleep, eat for breakfast, and all that same stuff. Your partner isn't stalking you.

[Edit]: I want to encourage the above comments. Doesn't matter if recursive4 believes the other side or not, I want these conversations to be front and center. I like to see the other responses than mine as well and I think these help us refine our arguments and by being prominent they help others be convinced and join us. So while I know we don't usually talk about how to upvote/downvote, I'll just say "vote strategically rather than agreeability" :)

[dpoloncsak]

Doesn't your (proverbial) Costco membership card track every time you enter and leave the store? Doesn't seem like anyone is suing them...

Also, if they were logging you specifically, you may have grounds to stand on. But if they're logging every customer that comes in/out (like websites do), I think there is a lot less grounds for a restraining order or anything

Edit: Found out I'm using 'proverbial' wrong but I think you get the idea either way.

[kshacker]

So I go to Costco and buy wine, and next week I get a letter from DMV reminding me of the blood alcohol requirements, I get people visit home selling wine glasses, when I go to work someone hands me the best of wines coffee table book, and so on.

Ok but you say - It is not this overt online - well if we live digital life, lot of things are not overt, but we know we need to clean cookies, some of us create containers, some of us use TOR, so the sensibilities in digital are different than real life, and I am showing pretty much equivalent examples / metaphors if the same level of intrusiveness was there in real life.

[godelski]

Don't forget that time Target accidentally informed a teenage girl's patents she was pregnant by sending her coupons despite not buying anything explicitly maternity related. And how Target's solution was "oh, we'll just add ads for other stuff too so it feels less creepy" -____-

https://archive.is/kK1V8

[kcrwfrd_]

Costco membership is more like voluntarily accepting cookies.

Even more than that, it’s purchasing a membership that requires authentication when you use the store.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> Doesn't your (proverbial) Costco membership card track every time you enter and leave the store

No (you have to use it at the register for Costco to know you were there),

and they don't track your every movement in store either,

and they don't track your every movement outside the store either,

and there isn't a standard way to say "I don't want this" which they nonetheless choose to ignore.

[treetalker]

> No (you have to use it at the register for Costco to know you were there),

Not the case where I am: Costco scans everyone's card upon entry into the store.

> and they don't track your every movement in store either,

It might: Costco certainly uses security cameras, and it's possible that Costco may be using some sort of AI / facial recognition software alongside the cameras. Perhaps someone who has worked with Costco in security / loss prevention could chime in.

> and they don't track your every movement outside the store either,

Probably true, although who knows whether Costco purchases data about its members from brokers?

> and there isn't a standard way to say "I don't want this" which they nonetheless choose to ignore.

I think you're talking about the equivalent of cookies in the real world, in which case I'd generally agree.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> Costco scans everyone's card upon entry into the store.

Not the case where I am: You just ask for a "code 99", because they are legally required to sell alcohol to nonmembers where I am. I'm sure there are other loopholes too ("I want to browse to see if I want to join"), but nonetheless, no tracking for me.

> it's possible that Costco may be using some sort of AI / facial recognition software alongside the cameras

It's possible that they have a magic genie that grants wishes to shoppers who rub the right pallet, but if we have no evidence of either, we need not entertain such hypotheticals.

> Probably true, although who knows whether Costco purchases data about its members from brokers?

Those brokers are literally the people to whom we're comparing Costco. If Costco must outsource the act in question to the brokers even in the analogy, then Costco is not analogous to the brokers.

[godelski]

(I get the idea)

Costco is much more like the Joe's Corner Market. I'm only dealing with Costco. It is a bit more invasive than Joe's Corner Market, but I'll admit that I have much more trust for Costco given their history. Like Joe, Costco isn't following me around the store, unless I explicitly ask for their help finding something. They similarly won't follow me outside unless I'm explicitly asking for something like a delivery or some other service. It is always explicit and I'm always aware that I'm being "watched".

But the key difference is that Costco isn't sharing that data with Walmart, Facebook, and others. There is some tracking and I definitely don't like that, but there's a huge difference in going to Costco.com vs Facebook.com or even Google.com. Heading to Costco.com uBlock hits me with 9 blocks. Heading to google.com I get 17 and then it is constantly rising. In the time to write these few sentences it has already hit 30. Meanwhile, costco is still at 9. I mean I'm literally on google.com sitting and staring at a search page doing nothing. There's a much more aggressive and invasive attitude here.

Mind you, nuance and intent matter very much. Without them we wouldn't be able to differentiate a partner you live with and a stalker. Similarly expectations of trust. I'm glad you're asking the question of getting the steelman and pressing, but we must make it clear that if we're going to brush away detail and be dismissive of the nuances then we are contriving an environment where we would be unable to differentiate these things. But again, the consequences of that contrived setting is that we would not be able to differentiate someone's husband/wife from a stalker. And that result is beyond laughable. So maybe the better question is to ask where these lines are drawn. I'm not sure there's an easy answer, but I'm certain it is important.

[AstralStorm]

The store owner visibly responds to the customers differently. Fingerprinting is invisible. It's more like the store owner recording everyone on hidden camera.

So no, you cannot steelman a broken analogy.

[glenstein]

It's automated data processing at scale rather than a local mom and pop country general store. The profit seeking, decision making, management culture driving decisions is a fundamentally different relationship. Also I don't think store owners do that?

Rather than presupposing an analogy to something importantly different, I would propose that the steelman would be along the lines of noting that ads and hyperpersonalization are effective at meeting and predicting your needs, and steering you towards an interpretation of your own needs that finds their fulfillment in deepening a consumer relationship. And if you get steered into lock-in with one company's ecosystem, you get the convenience of a stack of vertically integrated services.

[abdullahkhalids]

Lots of moral values/legal rules are based on magnitudes and scale.

You can talk at a normal voice inside your own home at night, and even if the neighbor can hear you through the thin walls, they have no legal recourse. If you start blasting music, the police will (in principle) come and stop you.

Some things are okay in moderation and simply bad in excess.

[DANmode]

Value of the dataset to attackers/buyers.