Privacy

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/26673961

Had never heard of this before today. Anyone tried it?

EDIT: "Being a fork of Mozilla Thunderbird, the software collects some data about the user, less than the original Mozilla Thunderbird, as outlined in Thunderbird's privacy statement. No data is submitted to Betterbird, some data may be submitted to Mozilla. No telemetry and no crash reports are submitted, however, add-on updates and blocklists are downloaded from Mozilla sites. Betterbird offers a product Start Page which processes access data as described above."

cross-posted from: https://mastodon.neat.computer/users/privacyguides/statuses/114094235648766052

Tor is an invaluable tool for bypassing censorship and browsing privately, in this week's video we dive into the details and explain how it works. Plus we cover some things you should avoid when using Tor to make sure you maintain your anonymity.

https://www.privacyguides.org/videos/2025/03/02/why-you-need-tor/

▶️ Watch on YouTube or PeerTube

#Tor #Privacy #TorBrowser #PrivacyGuides #Video #Security #Anonymity

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/26244492

The answer to "what is Firefox?" on Mozilla's FAQ page about its browser used to read:

The Firefox Browser is the only major browser backed by a not-for-profit that doesn’t sell your personal data to advertisers while helping you protect your personal information.

Now it just says:

The Firefox Browser, the only major browser backed by a not-for-profit, helps you protect your personal information.

In other words, Mozilla is no longer willing to commit to not selling your personal data to advertisers.

A related change was also highlighted by mozilla.org commenter jkaelin, who linked direct to the source code for that FAQ page. To answer the question, "is Firefox free?" Moz used to say:

Yep! The Firefox Browser is free. Super free, actually. No hidden costs or anything. You don’t pay anything to use it, and we don’t sell your personal data.

Now it simply reads:

Yep! The Firefox Browser is free. Super free, actually. No hidden costs or anything. You don’t pay anything to use it.

Again, a pledge to not sell people's data has disappeared. Varma insisted this is the result of the fluid definition of “sell” in the context of data sharing and privacy.

So, I use addy.io, and I'm slowly trying to de-google my life, but I ran into a service last night that rejected my email alias: Steam. So as of now, it's still stuck on Google.

I'm also using Tuta, but I'd like to avoid handing that address out to any online services if possible. What's the best option here?

Here's some ideas I had:

• Keep using that old Google address but filter specific senders and forward them to the alias I want to use.
• Set up a new email on Proton or Mailbox.org and use that to forward to my chosen aliases.

Is there perhaps a better or different way to have aliases for services that reject them?

Cross-posted from "Is running Librewolf without disabling fingerprinting worth it?" by @[email protected] in [email protected]

Without disabling fingerprinting, zoom options aren't saved, dark mode doesn't really work and Netflix is blocked. But is it even worth running Librewolf if you enable fingerprinting? Isn't that one of the main reasons why one runs Librewolf?

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/26233189

"Android System SafetyCore’ claims to be a ‘security’ application, but whilst running in the background, it collects call logs, contacts, location, your microphone, and much more making this application ‘spyware’ and a HUGE privacy concern. It is strongly advised to uninstall this program if you can. To do this, navigate to 'Settings’ > 'Apps’, then delete the application."

If you don't want to navigate android settings you can also simply uninstall it from the Play Store https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.safetycore

Additionaly you can install this placeholder app to prevent Google from reinstalling it every time it updates: https://github.com/daboynb/SafetyCore-placeholder

Edit: https://privacytests.org/

cross-posted from: https://theprancingpony.in/objects/883cc655-8267-c309-1237-9eb599273886

Like many others, I’ve been looking into internet browsers lately. This guy has put together a pretty extensive comparison: pctips.com/best-browsers

#privacy #browsers #firefox #firefoxgate

TL;DR:

• "all rights" has been replaced with "rights necessary"
• Overall language of "operate Firefox" still remains, with a link to their Privacy Notice.
• "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license" remains, but is explicitly limited to "the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox"
• Removed references to their Acceptable Use Policy

Details from a developer and FOSS advocate POV:

This is not enough.

Mozilla has yet to comment on why this change was necessary, outside of some vague "legally we have to" language. While these updated Terms shift more control back to the user, it's simply not enough. The only reason Mozilla would need any sort of license from the user is if they are going to be doing something with it on their systems. Any local use is and continues to be fully covered by the Mozilla Public License, which is the current license used by Firefox.

The MPL includes an indemnity and liability clause, which protects Mozilla from anything you might do with their browser. I can't think of a single FOSS license that doesn't include these clauses.

Controlling an application within the confines of your local device does not require the application to have a license to your content. It is, from a legal perspective, a tool you are using to do your own stuff. We don't give chisels manufactures a license for statues we make, notebook companies licenses for stories we write. And on the other side of that coin, no one sues Mozilla or Google because someone accesses The Pirate Bay or fmovies using the browser.

But let's take Mozilla at their word for a second. Suppose there was a legal reason for licensing your data.

Does Mozilla intend to force the websites you visit to agree to their terms? There are two sides to the connection you make on a website. For the sake of argument, say I'm visiting Disney+, another company super picky about their copyrights. I enter "www.disneyplus.com" into my browser, agreeing to Mozilla license provision. In order to "operate Firefox", the license allows Firefox to go to Disney+, who then responds back with their catalog. If Mozilla needs a license from me for my data, surely they need a license from Disney for their data to "operate Firefox".

In what world do you think Disney is going to grant Mozilla a "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license"? Their argument for any sort of licensing being necessary falls flat with this example right here.

Quick Edit here: their TOU assumes that you are the only license holder of content you upload using the browser. You cannot grant licenses to other people's content. So, in essence, you cannot upload a picture taken by your friend and if you do, the nature of these Terms allows your friend to sue Mozilla for copyright infringement. The very nature of asking for this license exposes them to liability for violations against copyright. Most websites have a clause that says something along the lines of "you agree that you have permission to share the content you upload to our servers and grant us a license to use that content as if it were you own" etc.

This isn't about your data within the local browser. This is about your data flowing through Mozilla. That's why they need the license. Their additional clause "This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content" does absolutely nothing. A license, by it's nature, means that Mozilla doesn't own the content and seeks your permission to use it.

To Mozilla's credit, they removed references to their Acceptable Use Policy, but remains in place their ability to terminate your license to use Firefox for any reason, keeping Firefox firmly in the "Source Available" category.

Each person will need to decide whether Firefox fits in within their personal use of the internet. I, for one, am tired of my content being used without my express permission. My goal is to move to Waterfox by the end of March, if not sooner.

cross-posted from: https://infosec.exchange/users/thenexusofprivacy/statuses/114084624503739574

Universities nationwide used pro-Palestine protests to expand surveillance

"In the aftermath of pro-Palestinian encampments last year, colleges across the country announced new policies that effectively ban many forms of protest. In addition to chilling dissent, the new university rules also allow for campus surveillance and overreach by law enforcement. "

https://prismreports.org/2025/02/26/universities-pro-palestine-protests-surveillance/

#surveillance #privacy #protest

Mozilla deletes promise to never sell Firefox data.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/30014811

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/30014783

U.S. Federal Trade Commission urged to investigate Google’s RTB data in first ever complaint under new national security data law.

Google sends enormous quantities of sensitive data about Americans to China and other foreign adversaries, according to evidence in a major complaint filed today at the FTC by Enforce and EPIC. This is the first ever complaint under the new Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act.

The complaint (open pdf) targets a major part of Google’s business: Google’s Real-Time Bidding (RTB) system dominates online advertising, and operates on 33.7 million websites, 92% of Android apps, and 77% of iOS apps. Much of Google’s $237.9 billion advertising revenue is RTB.

Today’s complaint reveals that Google has known for at least a decade that its RTB technology broadcasts sensitive data without any security, according to internal Google discussions highlighted in today’s complaint.

The complaint cites internal Google communications showing that Google CEO, Sundar Pichai, rejected or failed to act upon internal calls (example) to reform the company’s dangerous RTB system in 2021. Instead, Google continued to expose sensitive American defense and industry personnel, and their institutions, to blackmail and compromise, in addition to causing grave privacy harm to consumers.

The complaint cites internal Google communications showing that Google CEO, Sundar Pichai, rejected or failed to act upon internal calls to reform the company’s dangerous RTB system in 2021. Instead, Google continued to expose sensitive American defense and industry personnel, and their institutions, to blackmail and compromise, in addition to causing grave privacy harm to consumers. Even Google’s so called “non personalized” data contains dangerous data.

[...]

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/22523265

There’s a reason that cookies and privacy policies (in the EU at least) have become such an online nuisance. These assurances of your safety and privacy are nothing more than a pretext to get consent. Your “anonymised” data is sold to an infinite regress of third parties, analysed, correlated and de-anonymised again. Any smart device you use, your browsing habits, banking transactions, your GPS position are all used to deduce fine grain information about you. Then weaponised against you for as much profit as possible.