this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
356 points (98.9% liked)

Firefox

17302 readers
505 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

EDIT I love the dead "Learn more" link.

all 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cooopsspace@infosec.pub 73 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'd rather a "you can't track me" button rather than a "pwetty please pweeeease don't track me" button.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 69 points 1 year ago

I just want a single button that says "Fuck Off" and it makes all the trackers fuck off.

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’ll see and raise you: it should be default, without an opt-in.

[–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 1 points 1 year ago

The reason it's ignored by 99.999% of sites it's that it is a default on Microsoft browsers. If it wasn't a default maybe there would have been a chance that sites respected that choice (1% of users vs 50%)

[–] Knusper@feddit.de 14 points 1 year ago

That's the big selection above there...

[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago

When are they rolling out that all websites that ignore this setting, receive a huge fine? Without that, this is nothing

[–] IzzyData@lemmy.ml 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Isn't it more like a request? They don't have to oblige.

[–] iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Moreover, I'd think this would make you more easily fingerprinteable...

[–] sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Would you mind explaining why? Sorry if it’s a really obvious answer , but I usually turn on the “do not track” setting whenever I have the option to. Have I inadvertently made myself even more id-able?

[–] Maruki_Hurakami@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The more unique setting options you have make you more easily identifiable. At least that's my understanding.

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

It absolutely does, and quite sometime ago, the usual media did a blurb for a day or few ago about it was more likely to get you on various alphabet agency watchlist and idk i ever read details. Tinfoil hat territory bc I’m way too lazy but also winding down after an…interesting day. If you want to search it and can’t confirm, consider this redacted bc it was hm perhaps last 5 years? And I’m old and tired.

[–] gila@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

The California attorney general already said CCPA can't be used to legally enforce DNT requests because it isn't specific enough. So I'm guessing this is a more specific mechanism that can be included in regulations like CCPA and GDPR in future. People protected by them are already meant to be able to opt out

[–] Vincent@kbin.social 31 points 1 year ago

I think this is the production rollout of https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2021/10/28/implementing-global-privacy-control/

See also https://globalprivacycontrol.org. The difference with DoNotTrack is that this should be legally enforceable in California, IIUC.

[–] Linus_Torvalds@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am sceptical. The paradox of 'DoNotTrack' is, that this setting is used to track you; it gets ignored and, as most users do not have it enabled, makes you more unique.

Someone said, that this new setting is legally enforcable in California. We shall see how it applies to the rest of the world.

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago

Interesting, I didn't know the DoNotTrack signal was set that way 💀 lmao

[–] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmus.org 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nice!

I think it is similar to the, "do not track" function...

[–] Rocketpoweredgorilla@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ya it seems they just reworded it... that setting used to say "Send websites a “Do Not Track” signal that you don’t want to be tracked"

[–] Knusper@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought so, too, at first, but the Do-No-Track-toggle is right below that in the screenshot...

[–] Rocketpoweredgorilla@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're right, I didn't even see that. I just updated firefox to 118 and I still only have the "send websites a do not track signal" on mine... unless this is something on a beta version maybe? https://i.imgur.com/7qYnSGz.png

[–] machinaeZER0@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What theme are you using? Looks neat!

[–] hal_5700X@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] machinaeZER0@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

No worries, thank you!

[–] doctorn@r.nf 3 points 1 year ago

Reminds me of this plugin I used to have that intercepted most tracking and information requests to cookies, and instead sent back a cryptocurrency address with instructions that would automatically enable them to get the info they were asking for if they paid a preset minimum amount to the address first...

Seeing as all those trackers and alike are scrapers and automated headless scripts, it shouldn't surprise you that wallet never saw any transactions. 😅 The idea might not have been the best thought through, but the idea was nice and at least it didn't sent out anything else anymore... 😬

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can someone explain to me why browsers allow the tracking in the first place?

Why isn't there a possibility to turn info gathering off completely?

Like, those instances need the browser to comply in sending the data in the first place, right? Can't the browser just send "you do not have permission to receive this info" each time they ask?

I get that websites need to know your browser version in order to show things properly. But all the other data they gather isn't really necessary, is it? Why would they need to know my computer version for example? And all the other things they use for fingerprinting.