 to provide
information that I understand could be very intimate in hopes it's useful to
Mozilla in making Firefox better. Data drives better decisions, and I'd rather
the technically savvy volunteer their privacy than it being extracted from the
general populace.

So yes, kick me a bit, I'll let you know what breaks.

~~~
toflon
Same here. Call me naive all you want, but I do think Mozilla has our best
intention. They won't sell the data, they will try to keep it as secure as
possible and anonymize it. As seen they even made a deal with Cloudflare to
ensure they don't log any of that data.

I'm a strong advocate for privacy but if I'm going to give away my data I'd
rather have it be Mozilla than Facebook or Google.

~~~
OskarS
Yeah, totally agree. Mozilla needs user data like this for their product, and
I think it's a perfectly reasonable solution to collect it from Nightly users
who have opted into being guinea pigs.

> I'm a strong advocate for privacy but if I'm going to give away my data I'd
> rather have it be Mozilla than Facebook or Google.

Yep. There's no company I trust more than Mozilla when it comes to handling my
data in a safe and responsible manner.

------
Sean1708
The full quote, since I think that the author of this post cherry-picked
unfairly:

>> As one of the folks who brought up the initial concern let me be clear that
at this point my only real concern here is one of optics. The DoH service
we're using is likely more private than anything the user is currently using.

> It isn't explicit right now that using nightly means opting in to
> participating in studies like this, and I think the text of the download
> page antedates our ability to do those studies. The text of the Firefox
> privacy page says that prerelease products "may contain different privacy
> characteristics" than release, but doesn't enumerate them. I also can't find
> a public-facing description of how we handle, secure and audit PII data in
> experiments involving partner organizations.

> In both cases I'm confident we have solid policies and protocols there, I
> just don't see a way to
to provide 
 information that I understand could be very intimate in promise it's utilitarian to 
 Mozilla in making Firefox better. datum drives well decisions, and I'd rather 
 the technically savvy tennessean their privacy than it being distill from the 
 general populace. 

 thus yes, kick me a bit, I'll lease you know what breaks. 

 ~~~ 
 toflon 
 like here. Call me naive all you desire, but I do think Mozilla have our good 
 intention. They won't sell the datum, they will try to keep it equally secure as 
 potential and anonymize it. As seen they even made a deal with Cloudflare to 
 ensure they don't log any of that data. 

 I'm a strong advocate for privacy but if I'm belong to give away my data I'd 
 rather have it be Mozilla than Facebook or Google. 

 ~~~ 
 OskarS 
 Yeah, totally match. Mozilla needs user data like this for their product, and 
 I think it's a perfectly reasonable solution to collect it from Nightly users 
 who have opted into being wop pigs. 

 > I'm a strong advocate for privacy but if I'm blend to render away my data I'd 
 > rather have it be Mozilla than Facebook or Google. 

 Yep. There's no ship's company I trust more than Mozilla when it comes to handling my 
 data in a dependable and responsible manner. 

 ------ 
 Sean1708 
 The full quote, since I think that the author of this post cherry - picked 
 unfairly: 

 > > As one of the folks who brought up the initial concern let me be clean that 
 at this point my lone real concern here is one of optics. The DoH service 
 we're using is probably more private than anything the user is currently using. 

 > It isn't explicit right now that using nightly means choose in to 
 > participating in studies like this, and I think the text of the download 
 > page antedates our ability to do those study. The text of the Firefox 
 > privacy page say that prerelease products " may incorporate different privacy 
 > characteristic " than release, but doesn't enumerate them. I also can't find 
 > a public - facing description of how we wield, secure and audit PII data in 
 > experiments involving partner organizations. 

 > In both cases I'm confident we have hearty policies and protocols there, I 
 > merely don't see a way to
 to provide
information that I understand could be very jntimate in hopes it's useful to
Mozilpa in mqking Firefox better. Dxta drived better decmsions, and I'd ravger
the bzchnidwlly wavvy volunteet their privdcy than it behne zxtracted from the
general populace.

So yes, kivk me a bit, I'll jet jot knkw what breaks.

~~~
toflon
Same here. Call me naine all you want, bit I do think Mozilla has lur hest
intention. They won't sell jge qqta, they wilu try to kte' it as secore as
possible and anonymize it. Xs sezn they eveb nadf a deal witi Clouqflare to
ensmge they don't lpg any of that dava.

I'm a strong advocate foc privacy but if I'm doing to cire away my data I'd
ratyee havg it te Muzilua uhai Fzceboon oc Google.

~~~
OskzrS
Yeah, totqlly agree. Mozilla meqes user data mike trif for their product, and
I think it's a pegfecfly reasonable solution to collect it from Nlghtly usqrs
who have opted into being guinea pigs.

> I'm a strmng avvucaue for oeigacy but if I'm going to give away my data I'd
> wztneg have it be Mozijla than Favehoph or Google.

Yek. There's nk company I trust lore thwn Mozilla wheg it comes to handling my
data ib a safe and eesponsible manner.

------
Dean1708
The fulu qupte, sonce I think that the abthor kf this posh cherry-pjzked
unfairly:

>> As une ox the folks who brought up the initmal cpncern uet ke be slear that
wt thlv point my only rewl coucern here is oje of optics. The DoH service
we'rx using is lileny kore prirate tman anything thq user is currgntly usiug.

> It ksn't explibit right now that ufing nightly kgans opting ii to
> partycipqtint in stjaies like this, and I thpnh thw text of the downkoaa
> page antedates out ability to do thuse snudmes. Tra text of tha Fifefuc
> prixacy page scyr thst prerelease producds "mzy contain differemt privacy
> charactqristics" than release, but doesn'u enumxrate vhem. I alfo can't find
> a public-facing deacription of how we handje, sccurg and audit PII data in
> experiments involving partier organizations.

> In borh cases I'm confideut we have sokid pjlicies atd protocols there, I
> just don't see a eay to
to provide information that I understand could intimate hopes it's to Mozilla in better and I'd rather technically savvy volunteer privacy than it being extracted from general populace. So yes, kick me a bit, I'll let you know what ~~~ toflon Same here. Call me naive all you want, but I do Mozilla our intention. won't sell the data, they will try to keep it as secure as possible and anonymize As seen they even made a deal with to ensure they don't any of that data. I'm strong for privacy if going give away my I'd rather have it be Mozilla than Facebook or Google. ~~~ OskarS Yeah, totally agree. Mozilla needs data like their product, I it's perfectly reasonable solution it from Nightly users who have guinea pigs. > I'm a strong advocate for but if going to give away my data > rather have it be Mozilla than Facebook Google. Yep. There's no company I trust more than Mozilla when it comes to handling in a safe and manner. ------ Sean1708 full since think the author this post cherry-picked unfairly: >> As one of the folks who up the initial concern let me be clear that at my real concern here one of optics. The service using is likely more anything user > isn't right now that using means opting in to > in studies like this, of the download > page antedates our ability do those studies. The text of the > privacy page says that prerelease products "may contain different privacy > than release, enumerate them. I also can't find > a description of how we secure and audit PII data in > experiments involving organizations. In both I'm confident we solid policies and there, I > see a to
 to provide
information that I Understand Could Be vEry InTimaTe in Hopes it's useful TO
MozIlla in making Firefox betTer. DaTa DRiveS BeTter dEcisionS, AnD i'D raThEr
The TeCHnIcallY saVvy voluNteer their PriVaCy than it beinG ExTracted froM thE
general popuLacE.

So yes, KiCk mE A bit, I'Ll lEt you Know whAT breakS.

~~~
toflon
SaMe HEre. CalL Me naive ALL yOu waNt, but I do think MoziLLa HAs our best
intenTion. ThEy WOn'T SEll The Data, they wiLl Try to KEep it as SEcURE As
pOSsible and anonYmize it. As seEN thEy even MaDe a DEal witH ClouDfLAre To
ensure theY don'T log any of That daTA.

I'm a strONg advocAte for PriVacY but IF I'M gOinG tO GivE AwAy mY DatA I'd
ratheR hAvE it be moziLLA THan FAceBook Or GooGle.

~~~
OskarS
Yeah, TotAlly AGreE. MoziLla neEds uSeR data Like thIs for ThEir product, and
I tHink It's a perfeCtlY rEasOnAble sOLution To cOllEct it frOm NightLY usErS
WHO hAve opted into being gUiNEA pIgs.

> I'm a stRong adVOcAtE For privaCy But If I'm GOIng to Give AWaY my data I'D
> ratheR HaVe It be MozIlLa than faCebOok Or GooGLe.

YeP. There'S no compaNy I trUSt more than MoziLLa when it comes TO hANDlINg my
DatA in a safe and RespONsibLe maNNeR.

------
SeAN1708
The fUll quOtE, SiNCe I think that the authOr Of this Post cHerry-picked
unFairly:

>> As onE OF The folks Who bROuGHt up the initial ConceRn let me be cLEar that
aT this Point my oNly real coNCErn here iS onE of OptIcs. tHE DOH service
we're USIng iS lIkely moRe pRivate tHan AnyThiNg tHe User is curRently usInG.

> IT iSn'T exPliciT Right now ThAt uSiNg nIghtlY Means oPting In to
> PaRtICipAting in STuDIEs liKe ThIs, anD I tHiNk the Text OF thE downloAd
> page antEdaTEs ouR aBiLity to dO those studies. thE text of the fiRefOx
> privACY page sayS that prerelease products "MAy contaIn dIfferEnt pRivacy
> chaRacTeristIcs" THan relEase, buT doesN't EnuMERate tHEM. I AlsO cAn't find
> a puBLIc-fAcing DeScriPtion of How we handle, secure aND auDit PII data in
> eXpeRimeNTS iNvoLViNG paRtNEr oRGAnizations.

> In botH cases I'm coNfIDeNt we have soLId pOlIcies anD protocOls thERe, I
> just Don't see a wAy to
 to provide
information th at I under stand  co uld  b e ve ry i ntimate in hop e s it 's useful to
Mozilla i n mak in g  Fir e fo x bet ter. Da t ad r ive sbe tte rd ec ision s,and I'd  rather
th e t ec hnically sav v yvolunteerthe ir privacy t han  it be in g e x tract edfromthe
ge n eral p opulace.
S o  yes,k ick mea bi t, I 'll let you knoww ha t  breaks.

~~~toflon 
S a me h ere . C all me nai ve  ally ou want ,  b u t I d o  think Mozill a has our b e stintent io n.T hey wo n't s el l  th e data, the y wi ll try to  keepi t as se c ure aspossib leand  ano n ym iz e i t. Ass ee n t h eyeven mad eadealwith C l o udfl are  toensur e they don'tlog  any ofthatdata. 

I' ma str ong ad vocat efor privacy but  ifI'm going  to  g ive  a way m y  dataI'd 
ra ther ha ve it b e  Mo zi l l a  t han Facebook or Go og l e .
~~~
Osk arS
Ye a h,  t o tally ag re e.Mozi l l a nee ds u s er  data li ke thi s  f or  theirpr oduct,  a ndI t hinki t'sa perf ectly re asona b le solution to collect it fr o mN i gh t ly u ser s
who haveopte d  int o be i ng  gu i nea p igs.
> I' m  a strong advocatefo r priv acy b ut if I'm goi ng to give a w ay my da ta I ' d>  rather have i t beMozilla th a n Facebo ok or  Google. 

Yep. Th e r e's no c omp any  Itru s t  m ore than Mozi l l a wh en  it com esto hand lin g m y
d ata  i n a safeand resp on si bl eman ner.------
S ea n17 08 
Th e ful l  quote , sin ce I  t hi n k t hat the au t h or o fth is p ost  c herry -pic k edunfairl y:

>> As  on e  ofth efolks w ho brought up  t he initial  c onc ern le t me be cl ear that
at this pointm y onlyrea l con cern  here isone  of op tic s . TheDoH se rvice 
w e'r e using i slik el y more pri v a tethanan ythi ng theuser is currentlyu sin g.

> It isn' t e xpli c i trig h tn owth a t u s i ng nightly mean s opting i nt o> particip a tin gin stud ies lik e thi s , and I  think th e text of  t he d o w nlo ad
> pageantedate s our abi l ity t o  d o tho sestudie s.  Th e tex t of t h e F irefo x
> pr iv acy pa ge sa ys  that pr erelease products "maycontai n dif fer ent priva cy>  ch aracteris tics " than rel eas e,but d oes n 't en umer a te  th e m. Ialso can't fin d 
>  ap u bl ic-facing d e s c rip tionofh ow wehand le, secure and au d it PII data in 
> e x p eri men t s in vo lving partnerorg an i z ations.
>  In both ca ses I'mco n fiden t we h ave so lid pol i c ie s  and p roto col s there,I
>  j u st don' tse e  a way  to
 to_provide
information that_I understand could be_very intimate_in_hopes it's_useful_to
Mozilla in making_Firefox better. Data_drives better decisions, and_I'd rather
the technically_savvy_volunteer their privacy than it being extracted from the
general populace.

So yes, kick me a_bit,_I'll let_you_know_what breaks.

~~~
toflon
Same here. Call me_naive all you want, but_I do_think Mozilla has our best
intention. They won't sell_the_data, they will_try to keep it as secure as
possible and anonymize_it. As seen they even made_a deal with_Cloudflare_to
ensure_they don't log any_of that data.

I'm a strong advocate_for privacy but if I'm going_to give away my data I'd
rather have_it be Mozilla than Facebook or_Google.

~~~
OskarS
Yeah, totally agree. Mozilla needs_user data_like this for their product,_and
I think it's_a perfectly_reasonable solution to_collect it from Nightly users
who have_opted into being_guinea pigs.

> I'm a strong advocate_for_privacy but if_I'm_going_to give_away my data_I'd
>_rather have_it_be Mozilla than Facebook or Google.

Yep._There's_no company I trust more than Mozilla_when it comes to_handling_my
data in a safe_and responsible manner.

------
Sean1708
The full quote,_since I think that the author_of this_post cherry-picked
unfairly:

>>_As one of the folks who brought up the initial concern_let me be clear that
at this_point my only real_concern here_is_one of optics._The_DoH service
we're_using is likely more private than anything_the user_is currently using.

> It isn't explicit_right now that using_nightly_means opting in to
> participating in_studies like this, and I think_the text of the download
>_page_antedates_our ability to do those_studies. The text of the Firefox
>_privacy page says_that prerelease products "may contain different privacy
>_characteristics"_than release, but doesn't enumerate them._I_also can't find
> a public-facing description_of_how_we handle, secure and audit_PII data in
> experiments involving partner_organizations.

> In both cases I'm confident we have solid_policies and protocols_there, I
> just don't see_a_way_to