'An issue of survival': Why Mozilla welcomes EU attempts to regulate the internet giants Mozilla's head of EU public policy, Raegan MacDonald, reckons effective regulation to protect privacy and enable fair competition is an "issue of survival" for Mozilla and other independent companies. The browser developer approached us in order to comment on the EU's newly announced digital strategy. "We're at the beginning …
Contrary to the spirit of GDPR? It is illegal under GDPR. You can't refuse access if the user doesn't opt-in.
You can't collect or use information without an opt-in and you can't refuse access if they don't.
Cookies are a sticky subject though. Essential first party cookies (which page you visited last, are you logged on etc.) don't necessarily need to be agreed to, but anything that collects PII as you move through the site does, as do all third party cookies.
My browser kills them when closing the tab. Pwned!
Why would Mozilla, by default, clear your cookies, history and such on closing the browser? Think of the great unwashed who will cry foul if their precious won't log them in automatically at the mere hoover over the link. Or remember what did they search for a month ago. Let's not forget the fun you can have when they ask you to see why their browser is so slow and you accidentally on purpose expose their dirty browsing habits.
I know, I know, it's not PC to make fun of those technically challenged (did I get it right?), but boy...
It’s not a matter of being technically challenged whatsoever, you are being condescending to many people.
I specifically keep certain cookies for specific site preferences, which saves considerable time. I also keep certain specific third party cookies which some sites unfortunately require to function. I delete the rest. Firefox cookie and tracking management is very good these days.
Even MS are doing a decent job in this respect with their new Chromium Edge. I still prefer FF though, not just because of its mission, but also especially since it’s much lighter on resources than Chromium / Chrome browsers I’ve tried.
If you're in the UK, you won't have to worry about GDPR for much longer!
Google is already moving UK data to the USA thanks to Brexit.
The recent Cloud Act in the US, however, is expected to make it easier for British authorities to obtain data from US companies. Britain and the US are also on track to negotiate a broader trade agreement.Beyond that, the US has among the weakest privacy protections of any major economy, with no broad law despite years of advocacy by consumer protection groups.
Google has amassed one of the largest stores of information about people and uses the data to tailor services and sell advertising.
Google could also have had British accounts answer to a British subsidiary, but has opted not to do so.
@Jamie Jones
It was kind of following on the train of thought that our data might be freed up from the EU regs by the move to the US. The US being pretty good at providing things that people want while the EU seems envious of such ability while continuing to apply more regulations.
Hmmm. What? EU rules don't restrict you using your data for what you want, they restrict what others can do with your data without your permission.
I really hope you're not saying that "our data is better in the US because there, everyone else is free to do what the hell they like with it."
There's that story only this week on US ISPs claiming that restricting their ability to sell your web searches is against their freedom of speech... You agree?
@Jamie Jones
"Hmmm. What? EU rules don't restrict you using your data for what you want, they restrict what others can do with your data without your permission."
Yes. As I said the EU seem envious of US advancements but keeps applying more regulations to slow development.
"I really hope you're not saying that "our data is better in the US because there, everyone else is free to do what the hell they like with it.""
It is a view. Why do we have success stories like google, facebook and such in the world? Huge advances in AI, data retrieval, unique hashing algorithms, clusters, more efficient search algorithms, etc.
"There's that story only this week on US ISPs claiming that restricting their ability to sell your web searches is against their freedom of speech... You agree?"
To be honest I dont care. Recently the EU is wanting to stop development of AI for 5 years while it tries to find its arse with a map and both hands. I do care
Fair enough. At least you're up front in your opinion.
I don't agree that the EU is applying regulations to slow development. The same regulations apply to non-US companies too, and Facebook and Google would continue to be successful even if there was "global GDPR" - just as EU companies weren't dominant pre GDPR.
The main thing is that the EU is considering the citizen; the US the corporations. I suppose some may think that means the EU is unfair on corporations, but many of us would simply say the US is too lax on them.
To your example, if the EU was just trying to penalise America, then these AI "restrictions" would be a bit of an own goal, no?
Maybe, just maybe, they have been worried -- rightly or wrongly -- by the horror stories (again, relating to personal liberty and privacy)
And do you not care for the search history caching because of the following 3: a) You're not in the US, b) You're able to use a VPN if need be c) You don't regularly search for feet fetishes in your local area? (*) Would you feel the same way if 2 out of 3 of those weren't true?
(*) If you do actually search for foot-fetishes in your local area, apologies, it was just an example, I'm not judging you! :-)
@Jamie Jones
"I don't agree that the EU is applying regulations to slow development. The same regulations apply to non-US companies too, and Facebook and Google would continue to be successful even if there was "global GDPR" - just as EU companies weren't dominant pre GDPR."
We dont know if they would be so dominant. The regulations didnt exist then and a large part of FB and googles expansion has been through big data. If we pour tar on them now they must adapt (in the EU) but if they were already covered in tar would they have got as far as they have? The EU may not intend to slow development but that is the effect of regulations. The 5 year ban on AI being a good example, who else is going to do that?
"The main thing is that the EU is considering the citizen; the US the corporations. I suppose some may think that means the EU is unfair on corporations, but many of us would simply say the US is too lax on them."
From what I have read it does seem to be 2 different ways of looking at the same problem. From what I have seen the US people seem to view the public vs the private and the public imposes on the private. Over here we seem to have a different view that the gov is somehow on the side of the citizen against the businesses. Although that gets complicated when people complain about the gov being in cahoots with business. *I know its actually more complicated and a mix on both sides of the pond but roughly.
"To your example, if the EU was just trying to penalise America, then these AI "restrictions" would be a bit of an own goal, no?"
I dont think this is a move to penalise America and yes its an own goal. I actually think its a control freak mentality which should scare people that the EU wants a centrally planned economy.
"Maybe, just maybe, they have been worried -- rightly or wrongly -- by the horror stories (again, relating to personal liberty and privacy)"
Of course. This is the good governance vs bad where one considers the problem and the other reads the latest horror story and reacts. The expectation then growing that the gov will react to the latest overreaction and never do anything useful. Its an easy trap to fall into for any gov and ours has been guilty of it too.
"And do you not care for the search history caching because of the following 3: a) You're not in the US, b) You're able to use a VPN if need be c) You don't regularly search for feet fetishes in your local area? (*) Would you feel the same way if 2 out of 3 of those weren't true?"
You are right with a, b and c but even without that yes. The data (1) requires ISPs to secure ‘opt-in’ consent from their customers before using information that is not sensitive in nature or even personally identifying; and it is a targeted restriction-
All of this results in an “excessive burden” on ISPs, they claim, especially because not everyone else had to do the same. The new statute includes “no restrictions at all on the use, disclosure, or sale of customer personal information, whether sensitive or not, by the many other entities in the Internet ecosystem or traditional brick-and-mortar retailers,” the lawsuit complains.
*Note to anyone reading this and confused. Very sorry but this conversation is also discussing from another topic- https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/02/20/maine_isp_lawsuit/
We dont know if they would be so dominant. The regulations didnt exist then and a large part of FB and googles expansion has been through big data. If we pour tar on them now they must adapt (in the EU) but if they were already covered in tar would they have got as far as they have? The EU may not intend to slow development but that is the effect of regulations. The 5 year ban on AI being a good example, who else is going to do that?
Fair enough. But why should we be grateful they are so big? Especially when their growth is down to shady data dealings?
The vacuum would have been filled one way or another, the only possible consequence is that some billionaires might not be quite as rich from profitting off others data.
From what I have read it does seem to be 2 different ways of looking at the same problem. From what I have seen the US people seem to view the public vs the private and the public imposes on the private. Over here we seem to have a different view that the gov is somehow on the side of the citizen against the businesses. Although that gets complicated when people complain about the gov being in cahoots with business. *I know its actually more complicated and a mix on both sides of the pond but roughly.
I agree. Though I'd phrase it differently. Over here, people *expect* the governments to work for them, and whilst there are still some voters who expect that, some politicians will be like minded.
In America, (and becoming more so with the UK govenment) people are resigned to that fact that the politicians work for the corporations, and the lobbying has been able to take over.
Though, I do see America showing signs of getting better. Here, we seem to need things to get even shittier before we have our "let them eat cake" reaction.
I dont think this is a move to penalise America and yes its an own goal. I actually think its a control freak mentality which should scare people that the EU wants a centrally planned economy.
An 'own goal" from a purely captilist profiteering point of view, but to some people, it's a cautionary step (although admittedly it's pretty useless if the rest of the world doesn't agree to the same plans)
Still, if people are that concerned about that or any other EU actions, they can always vote them out, seeing it's a democratic institution after all!
Of course. This is the good governance vs bad where one considers the problem and the other reads the latest horror story and reacts. The expectation then growing that the gov will react to the latest overreaction and never do anything useful. Its an easy trap to fall into for any gov and ours has been guilty of it too.
So your issue with the AI restictions isn't that they decided to place them, but that in this case, the restrictions don't tally with any supposed issue?
Yeah, all governments tend to over-react to certain issues. Once an angry mob gets mobilised, governments will be seen to make some stupid unworkable laws that won't help anyway.. Politicians knowing this, you also get the situation where they purposely incite the mob so they can "appease" them by passing laws they wanted to pass in the first place. The number of times "think of the children" and "to catch terrorists" has been used as a smokescreen is witness to that.
However, the other side of the coin is that I don't want governments to *not* investigate/restrict something just because doing so will affect the profits of some mega-corp. That's where America is, and we are heading.
You are right with a, b and c but even without that yes. The data (1) requires ISPs to secure ‘opt-in’ consent from their customers before using information that is not sensitive in nature or even personally identifying; and it is a targeted restriction-
Well, assuming they are completely above board there, I'll admit it's not as bad as has been reported, but still, it's an automatic assumption of theirs that they own this data. You'd not expect the phone or postal companies to do similar.
And how can they truely guarantee information will be anonymised?
What about a URL http://www.somesite.com/search/does/jamie/jones/from/swansea/have/a/big/xxxx ?
All of this results in an “excessive burden” on ISPs, they claim, especially because not everyone else had to do the same. The new statute includes “no restrictions at all on the use, disclosure, or sale of customer personal information, whether sensitive or not, by the many other entities in the Internet ecosystem or traditional brick-and-mortar retailers,” the lawsuit complains.
Well, that's just silly of them. There is absolutely no burden on them to leave peoples data alone. In fact, the burden would be the one they claim to have put on themselves : anonymising the data they are collecting.
And if they were campaigning for the same rules to apply to all, then I'd be agreeing with them, though I think their comparisons are invaild - Let them set up a shop on their portal, and then let people know that "1,000 people ordered a barbeque set last month" - it's not the same thing as snooping on peoples data, whh is no different to having peoples phone conversations listened to and "anonymised".
The main difference is the selling of information that a customer has provided you, versus selling information between 2 separate parties that has nothing to do with you. That's a big diiffence!
@Jamie Jones
"Fair enough. But why should we be grateful they are so big? Especially when their growth is down to shady data dealings?"
It isnt quite about being grateful they are so big, they are so big because people choose them. If they didnt then these businesses wouldnt exist for much longer.
"The vacuum would have been filled one way or another, the only possible consequence is that some billionaires might not be quite as rich from profitting off others data."
Maybe. And the various technologies and contributions made by these companies wouldnt exist either. Something would fill the void, but if it didnt generate as much in riches then that would be a reduction in wealth for us all.
"I agree. Though I'd phrase it differently. Over here, people *expect* the governments to work for them, and whilst there are still some voters who expect that, some politicians will be like minded."
Ok. But that is a delusional view surely? Throughout all of history the idea of governments working for anyone but themselves has yet to be shown. Success usually requiring the reduction of such meddlers as governments are a single point of contact to corrupt and attract the power hungry.
"Still, if people are that concerned about that or any other EU actions, they can always vote them out, seeing it's a democratic institution after all!"
Can we? The EU dictating the waiting period of 5 years isnt something we can change (UK). And precautionary steps can be justified for most advancement. And it would of course stop progress.
"So your issue with the AI restictions isn't that they decided to place them, but that in this case, the restrictions don't tally with any supposed issue?"
My issue with the restrictions is they are stupid. They provide no benefit but slow progress in the EU while the world continues without them. That it is a stupid overreaction is another strike against it.
"just because doing so will affect the profits of some mega-corp. That's where America is, and we are heading."
Profit is not a swear word. Salary, pension, payment, etc all require profit. Profit is a good thing of itself. That doesnt mean bad actions can be justified by profit but we are not discussing bad actions. We are talking about popular, successful and profitable.
"Well, assuming they are completely above board there, I'll admit it's not as bad as has been reported"
You hit the nail on the head there. I agree.
"And if they were campaigning for the same rules to apply to all, then I'd be agreeing with them"
I think the basis of the argument is that the rule isnt so applied. If it was applied to all then there wouldnt be an argument.
"The main difference is the selling of information that a customer has provided you, versus selling information between 2 separate parties that has nothing to do with you. That's a big diiffence!"
How does the information have nothing to do with them? (want to make sure I understand)
This post has been deleted by its author
That’s only part of the story though...
“...Ireland where Google and other US tech companies have their European headquarters, is staying in the EU...It is understood that Google decided to move its British users out of Irish jurisdiction because it is unclear whether Britain will follow GDPR or adopt other rules that could affect the handling of user data...”
So it’s more about Brexit legal uncertainty than what you suggested.
And yet somehow Google thinks they can shift the data to the US. Now which data controller in the US would you need to speak to to assert your GDPR rights? And would they take any notice of you? And if they don't, which independent data protection public body would you speak to to get them enforced (do they even exist in the US)?
You would speak to the exact same person you spoke to to assert your rights if the data were stored in France or on the moon. The UK ICO. The Data Protection Act was always stronger than the requirements mandated by the EU; at present GDPR is written into UK law and continues to apply after Brexit - of course any 'punishment' handed down would be wholly inadequate but that can be assumed as it has been historically nothing to do with Brexit.
>Google could also have had British accounts answer to a British subsidiary, but has opted not to do so
British people could also generally not to use google, but have opted not to do so.
With the prevalence of big tech, privacy is non-trivial to keep, but you can do some basic things, like use a paid-for email service, use Brave or no-script. I really value privacy, but even just blocking the ads makes the internet a more pleasant place.
"Mozilla is not a company that owns an ecosystem; we do not own hardware; we cannot promote or create ourselves as the default in mobile, in iOS, in Android, or on a laptop or desktop." ..... Mozilla head of EU public policy Raegan MacDonald
Of course we can, Ms MacDonald, by the simple adage of prime drivering information for browsers in all systems to access for Advanced IntelAIgent Programming.
A little something extra especial to energise and exercise that great matter between the ears.
And that's enough to keep anyone busy for more than just ever.
well, probably really yes! - and does one need to add in one's post that the target is already half set with the question of Ms MacDonald, but would that require some brand new method of crypting/decrypting wbstf right on-the-go, appearing right out-of-the-blue?
aIright, nobody getting jealous, blue's just an example (-;
And that's what the establishment are terrified of for then have they lost command and control of the leading narratives ..... to SMARTR IntelAIgent Systems executing Almighty Beta Virtual Instructions.
I Kid U Not.
Do you realise those points in time and space are your current reality to deny if you can and want to?
I was the person who told them Firebird was already taken (by an Interbase database clone). They weren't too pleased having spent several weeks coming up with that name to replace Phoenix.
When they suggested Firefox I laughed and said "you know there's a Clint Eastwood film..."
That reminds me of when Norwich Union rebranded itself as Aviva, which they thought was a pretty unique/unused name. That is until until someone pointed out that on one of the main pedestrian areas in Norwich there was already a women's clothes shop* called Aviva...
(* it's gone now)
On quite a few of these CSS3 issues, it's that Firefox adheres to the actual CSS spec, but the spec is an ass. Chrome and several others deviate from the spec with proprietary undocumented cludges, that give behaviour that's much more intuitive, and makes FF look "broken" in contrast. Certainly this is the case with a lot of Flexbox oddness, not as certain about grid.
Worked on a site recently where I just relented that it will look different on FF and Chrome... I didn't have the energy to franken-div it.
Long time ago, the existance saved us from Proprietary MS only internet.
And I would have thought it deliciously ironic (and a much better choice for them and us) if Microsoft had based their Edge rewrite on Mozilla/Firefox rather than MSIE6-revisited (AKA Google Chrome).
I wish we had that same Firefox now. Back then, Mozilla's strategy was to unabashedly deliver a better browser than the corporate giant offered. The bit about not being part of the Microsoft hegemony was certainly part of it, but being a better browser was important too. It's doubtful people would have migrated just because of the dislike for what MS was doing to the web!
Now the same outfit that aimed to unseat IE by making a better browser is doing its level best to lop off every feature that makes Firefox better than Chrome, in some kind of foolish hope that it can somehow out-Chrome the actual Chrome. What would have happened if Mozilla of the early 2000s removed Firefox's tabbed browsing feature, removed the toolbar customization, and restricted the addon APIs so that only IE BHOs (browser helper objects) could be used instead of the much more powerful XPCOM addons? Would it have had the impact it did if it tried to compete with IE on who can have the most IE-like feature set?
Mozilla has been obsessed with trying to copy Chrome for more than a decade, and its market share has been in freefall for about the same time. I'm not suggesting causation... only that trying to out-Chrome the actual Chrome has not worked, and yet they still persist, as if there was some kind of critical mass of deleted features that will finally start the exodus away from Chrome.
Chrome's UI is the worst I have ever seen on a desktop browser, and Firefox's used to be the best, until they dumped that to be more like Chrome. It's been a gradual process of dropping important features with each release, but extension authors repeatedly stepped up and provided the means to fix these blunders. Then, of course, Mozilla chopped off the extension API capable of making such changes, in favor of the Chrome extension API (of course). If not for userChrome.css, bringing a Firefox-like UI to Firefox would be impossible... and that's a feature Chrome doesn't have, so I'm terribly suspicious that its days are numbered too.
Mozilla seems to be engaged in a decade-long suicide pact, and it shows no sign of changing direction.
@Updraft102
"Chrome's UI is the worst I have ever seen on a desktop browser, and Firefox's used to be the best, until they dumped that to be more like Chrome."
I am glad its not just me with that problem. I dont care that other people might prefer chromes look over FF but I preferred FF over chrome. That and the version number thing where they seem to be rushing to have the highest number yet for what I am using I see nothing different.
Another damning thing that Google actively discourages use of other browses. How do I know this? The last month Google maps became unusable on Firefox but I have access to other browsers one of which Falkon was able to fool Google that it was Chrome. It promoted Google to sent out a message saying "Chrome needs to be on a new version". Nevertheless Google maps worked perfectly.
Sort-of.
I am not a big Windows user, but IIRC, the Mosaic (via Spyglass Software, an amazingly prescient name) based Internet Explorer has been replaced by the Chromium based Edge browser. I'm pretty sure this "child of Chrome" is at least the default browser for Windows 10.
But, yeah, you _can_ run IE on Win10, much as you _can_ swim in the SF Bay in January. That said, most employers will not require you to do that (the swimming bit, not the "use IE until we can fix some crucial company sites". That's still a thing)
Microsoft still includes some support for IE (HECK IE 11 STILL GETS UPDATES!) because Enterprises for some reason still need it.
And I was referring to the late 90s early 2000s when the Wed was literally made for Internet Explorer and if you tried another Web Browser the webpages didn't work right.
ok it probably doesn't solve much, but set your browser to delete ALL cookies when you exit the browser. And exit it at least once per day, preferably more often.
It will make it a little more difficult for them to track you as you'll get a different cookie the next time you go to their site. Plus use an ad blocker to stop more cookies getting stored, which reduces the footprint of data they have on you from different sites. Then use No Script to stop unnecessary scripts from loading, often in the background. Don't think that's a problem? Then I recommend you put No Script on for a short time and just look at the number of websites that get loaded when you load a page -- try the 'free' news sites, as they seem to be the worst. Every time you go on one you will load sometimes twenty or so other sites; some are needed for the page to function, but many are just parasitic trying to get you to store cookies so they can build a picture of what you view.
As I say none of this is foolproof, but it only adds a little more effort on your side, and will break some of their scripts so they have less complete data about you.
If you think all the above is shit, then be my guest and do nowt. I may be just as exposed as you, but at least I don't see any of those annoying flashing adverts. They drive me mad. And if the website then breaks when you use these tools don't use it and go to a different website. Whose loss is that, yours or theirs?
You have the power!! :-)
Oh, and forget about those fucking glasses. They are not important.
Nowadays they also track you by location and IP so deleting cookies barely does anything to improve your privacy.
My IP address changes every few days (or more often if I want it to), and it comes from a pool of IP addresses that cover an area that includes multiple millions of people in a radius of at least 50 miles. If they can track me with that without some other form of persistent ID (like a cookie), my hat is off to them!
Yeah well, it'll have to get in line.
People have funny ideas about free speech. The awkward truth is that it's always, everywhere, been constrained in many ways - some actively enforced, but most merely assumed and accepted.
The big difference now is that instead of offending random passers-by in the street or a handful of zealots at a public meeting, everything remotely controversial immediately gets broadcast to everyone in the world who is likely to be most upset by it. Because clicks.
Before they worry about what kind of content is on the internet, perhaps they could fix the problem of Firefox taking a long time to start (their solution to this is to 'refresh' the browser, which means losing all your extensions and history). They could also fix the bug which freezes Firefox when they decide to open a new tab to load one of their splash screens advertising whatever the latest product they've thought up this week, forcing a re-start. Also, the runaway memory problem might be worth looking at (8 GB for a single tab) and the problem where live video streaming eventually stops working after 30 to 45 minutes.
Layers and layers of bloated code, advertising, tracking, cookies and piss poor bloated graphics.The web hasn't been optimized for almost a decade. .... ecofeco
Is that what AI is now fixing, ecofeco ..... with AIMaster Pilot Plans to Follow Sublimely for NEUKlearer HyperRadioProACTive Self Actualisation in Novel Virgin Source Provisions/Programs/Projects ‽ .
And is that a rhetorical question of Future Suppliers of Enlightened Entertainment with Enlightening Engagements?
I'm sure many a Dominic Cummings type weirdo and misfit could relate to practically all of that and relish exercise of the beasts then so easily created and sated/tempted and destroyed.
However, whenever such is just a default norm in Global Operating Devices just doing their Work in IT Thing, what would you have to fear? Would any like to stop it ...... and for what earthly reason, for one is missing around in some seriously sensitive and almightily explosive proprietary Intellectual property space, are always good questions best answered without fear or favour truthfully as recorded and accorded by the sum of one's personal knowledge, for others' truths may vary by a stupendous degree given the sum of their knowledge.
:-) And you don't wonder why Earth is such a Crazy Place in Space with practically nothing known of virtually everyone met and/or interreacted with? Are you mad or into something even stranger on Planet Earth?
Do you want some Just in Time Help/QCOSMIC Assistance?
Methinks the web is pretty much well enough optimised for instant delivery of any and/or all of that, ecofeco.
Every time I complained about sites not following standards and breaking Opera 12, all I heard, especially from the Firefox crowd was, "git gud, no-one cares about a browser with single digit market share". And when Opera complained about it to the EU, it was "sore losers, can't win in the market".
The only thing preventing me from exploding in schadenfreude is that I don't want Firefox to be left for roadkill. Monocultures are bad, even when they're from "cool" Apple or "nerd" Google and not "evil" Microsoft.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
