# Firefox: Often downloaded to prevent spyware, but it really is spyware



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2143

Well, I know what just got uninstalled off all of my systems, and banned from all the computers I manage at work.

This is something I expect Microsoft to pull, not Mozilla, and to have no easy way to turn it off is even worse.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2143
> 
> Well, I know what just got uninstalled off all of my systems, and banned from all the computers I manage at work.
> 
> This is something I expect Microsoft to pull, not Mozilla, and to have no easy way to turn it off is even worse.



Nooo, that sucks, I love my mozilla. I noticed this on my gf's computer w/ comodo firewall, this random ip always pops up, I keep it blocked constantly, I wonder if that effectively stops this. Nothing too malicious about it, but I don't like the idea, looks like I'm going to have to start shaping up my opera skills.......

I wouldn't be surprised if microsoft already has pulled something like this, it's just built into the code so we don't notice it.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 1, 2008)

meh its not to big its basically looking to see if your using blacklisted add-ons although the user checking part.....


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 1, 2008)

cdawall said:


> meh its not to big its basically looking to see if your using blacklisted add-ons although the user checking part.....



It itself isn't big, but the fact that it's set up means there is probably the possibility of further probing w/o your knowledge.


----------



## Duffman (Jul 1, 2008)

not too worried about that.  Let me know when it does something harmfull.


----------



## erocker (Jul 1, 2008)

Thanks for the information newtekie1!  This sucks, and I really like Thunderbird!:shadedshu


----------



## dark2099 (Jul 1, 2008)

I really don't care about that, plus if you really want to, Mozilla tells you how to disable it.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 1, 2008)

dark2099 said:


> I really don't care about that, plus if you really want to, Mozilla tells you how to disable it.



How?


----------



## dark2099 (Jul 1, 2008)

It gives a link to the mozilla support page that should tell you.


----------



## mon74 (Jul 1, 2008)

Still better than IE, firefox 3 it's so much better.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jul 1, 2008)

wow I cant believe people are complaining about this.. I dont really care if its a privacy intrusion, I mean its still 100 times better than any other browser..


----------



## DonInKansas (Jul 1, 2008)

Maybe that's how Firefox is getting us!  Subliminal messages telling us it rules all through unknown addons!  

If it's disableable, I don't see the problem.  *Hugs Firefox*


----------



## shadyjames (Jul 1, 2008)

My paranoia sense is tingling

Wow, a non-profit organisation will file away the software you use in a massive database, big deal. Its not like its taking anything personal, or that theres going to be teenagers going through the database on a daily basis saying "OMG! John smith has pr0nmaster 9000 installed"
I don't get why you think this is something to care about?


----------



## a111087 (Jul 1, 2008)

the only thing i don't like is sending out everyone's ip address to them 
they should be careful with this


----------



## psyko12 (Jul 1, 2008)

For me I think this is how FF manages the anti- attack site protection thing, and it's way of checking for updates on add-ons etc.

Here's more info on the unwanted connections:

http://support.mozilla.com/fr/kb/Firefox+makes+unrequested+connections


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

shadyjames said:


> My paranoia sense is tingling
> 
> Wow, a non-profit organisation will file away the software you use in a massive database, big deal. Its not like its taking anything personal, or that theres going to be teenagers going through the database on a daily basis saying "OMG! John smith has pr0nmaster 9000 installed"
> I don't get why you think this is something to care about?



The Mozilla Corporation is not non-Profit.

There are a few things I don't like about this.  Why are they collecting IPs?  There is no need for that?  Why are they collecting the times I use the program?  There is no need for that.  And why are they collecting the number of users that use firefox?  There is no need for that either.  Finally, my biggest problem with it is that it was never disclosed to the users and there isn't an easy to access way to turn it off.  You have to wade through all the options in about:config and fine the rather cryptic entry to disable it.

I have no problem with collecting usage statistics, *IF* it is done correctly.  The probem needs to warn the user during the install and give the user the option to disable it during the install.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> The Mozilla Corporation is not non-Profit.
> 
> There are a few things I don't like about this.  Why are they collecting IPs?  There is no need for that?  Why are they collecting the times I use the program?  There is no need for that.  And why are they collecting the number of users that use firefox?  There is no need for that either.  Finally, my biggest problem with it is that it was never disclosed to the users and there isn't an easy to access way to turn it off.  You have to wade through all the options in about:config and fine the rather cryptic entry to disable it.
> 
> I have no problem with collecting usage statistics, *IF* it is done correctly.  The probem needs to warn the user during the install and give the user the option to disable it during the install.


Why? MS products don't give you a warning or an option during install. You're still using them. This is the same harmless thing that most software does. They're not only trying to keep your system clean of bad extensions, but also keeping a database of how many people use their product and when. Most companies try to track that. It's not like they're harvesting personal information.

As is usually the case in these situations, this is being blown out of proportion.

If you don't like it, just disable it. Problem solved.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Why? MS products don't give you a warning or an option during install. You're still using them. This is the same harmless thing that most software does. They're not only trying to keep your system clean of bad extensions, but also keeping a database of how many people use their product and when. Most companies try to track that. It's not like they're harvesting personal information.
> 
> As is usually the case in these situations, this is being blown out of proportion.
> 
> If you don't like it, just disable it. Problem solved.



Microsoft's products don't phone home on a daily basis sending user statistics, which is why I still use them and the ones that do ask you if you want to when installing.  Go install Media Player 11, it asks you before you even start using the software if you want to provide usage statistics.

The major issues I have with it are because of the shady attempt by Mozilla to hide what they are doing.  They mask it as a block plug-in protection, but they don't need my IP to check for blacklisted plug-ins, they don't need to know how many users are using it to check for blacklisted plug-ins, and they don't need to know what times I've used it to check for blacklisted plug-ins.

It wouldn't be an issue if they would have done it right, instead they did it in a shady way and tried to hide the fact that they were collecting this data from the users.  That is the definition of spyware.



			
				dictionary.com said:
			
		

> Spyware: Software that secretly gathers information about a person or organization.



That describes this situation exactly.

I like the idea of if I don't like it I just won't use the product.  That solves the problem much better.  Firefox is nothing more than spyware in my book now.


----------



## ivargasa (Jul 1, 2008)

If you don't like firefox don¡'t use it, ja,ja!
In my opinion Firefox and Opera are the best browsers!


----------



## wiak (Jul 1, 2008)

microsoft has done this for AGES heck XP phones home, so who cares


----------



## Wile E (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Microsoft's products don't phone home on a daily basis sending user statistics, which is why I still use them and the ones that do ask you if you want to when installing.  Go install Media Player 11, it asks you before you even start using the software if you want to provide usage statistics.
> 
> The major issues I have with it are because of the shady attempt by Mozilla to hide what they are doing.  They mask it as a block plug-in protection, but they don't need my IP to check for blacklisted plug-ins, they don't need to know how many users are using it to check for blacklisted plug-ins, and they don't need to know what times I've used it to check for blacklisted plug-ins.
> 
> ...


Well, your book isn't a very consistent one. Who cares what WMP11 says in it's installer, or what options it gives you? MS put it into Windows itself. When that was first discovered, you apparently didn't immediately stop using Windows, so why is this any different?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Well, your book isn't a very consistent one. Who cares what WMP11 says in it's installer, or what options it gives you? MS put it into Windows itself. When that was first discovered, you apparently didn't immediately stop using Windows, so why is this any different?



I care what options WMP11 gives.  The difference between spyware and not spyware is wether collecting the user's information is hidden or not.  They they give you an option to disable it when you install, then it isn't hidden and hence not spyware.  Firefox gives you no such option and no warning about it., and actually makes it rather difficult for a normal user to disable, and doesn't even name the option properly in about:config.

AFAIK no Microsoft OS phones home on a daily basis reporting usage statistics.  Unless I am mistaken, can you show me where this has been confirmed?


----------



## Wile E (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> AFAIK no Microsoft OS phones home on a daily basis reporting usage statistics.  Unless I am mistaken, can you show me where this has been confirmed?



http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Admits_WGA_Phones_Home/1149798507


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> I care what options WMP11 gives.  The difference between spyware and not spyware is wether collecting the user's information is hidden or not.  They they give you an option to disable it when you install, then it isn't hidden and hence not spyware.  Firefox gives you no such option and no warning about it., and actually makes it rather difficult for a normal user to disable, and doesn't even name the option properly in about:config.
> 
> AFAIK no Microsoft OS phones home on a daily basis reporting usage statistics.  Unless I am mistaken, can you show me where this has been confirmed?




Everyday my symantec kept blocking this request to an ip, i did a whois ... M$ svchost keeps calling home


----------



## btarunr (Jul 1, 2008)

Right, say I'm a kid and watch pr0n, is Mozilla (or even Microsoft for that matter) going to send a letter to my parents telling them what I did? As for sensitive information, most banks and shopping websites where card information is transacted use at least 128bit SSL encryption. Mozilla can't do shit with the:


> - IP address
> - What time you were using the product
> - What exact version number you were using
> - If you are using any of the plugins or addons sent in the disabled list
> - Total number of active users of their software



...as all of them are unrelated to my bank/transaction work.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

Wile E said:


> http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Admits_WGA_Phones_Home/1149798507



Ok, and no where in there does it say anything about it sending usage statistics or collecting any information about the user.  I think you are missing the point there, it isn't the phoning home that is the problem, it is the fact that it does it and sends personal information back that is the problem.  Microsoft's WGA phoning home does nothing close to that.

If you actually read the article it says: "no data is exchanged with Microsoft"

So again I will say: AFAIK no Microsoft OS phones home on a daily basis *reporting usage statistics*. Unless I am mistaken, can you show me where this has been confirmed?

This time I tried to make it a little more clear since you seemed to skip over that little, but rather important, detail.



[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> Everyday my symantec kept blocking this request to an ip, i did a whois ... M$ svchost keeps calling home



Yes, it is microsoft WGA phoning home.  But is it sending usage statistics?



btarunr said:


> Right, say I'm a kid and watch pr0n, is Mozilla (or even Microsoft for that matter) going to send a letter to my parents telling them what I did? As for sensitive information, most banks and shopping websites where card information is transacted use at least 128bit SSL encryption. Mozilla can't do shit with the:
> 
> 
> ...as all of them are unrelated to my bank/transaction work.



Most spyware doesn't worry about your bank/transaction work.  Does that magically not make it spyware?  Just because it is harmless, doesn't make it acceptable.  Collecting and sending usage statistics without the user's knowledge is unacceptable.


----------



## spud107 (Jul 1, 2008)

i dont use firefox but i really don't see why all the fuss,
its how they find out how popular it is, and im guessing it keeps track of the plugins,


----------



## btarunr (Jul 1, 2008)

So what are you, using Opera?


----------



## spud107 (Jul 1, 2008)

ye, but firefox if im at my mates pc,
dont get me wrong i like ff, iv just been using opera as long as iv been into pc's


----------



## Wile E (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Ok, and no where in there does it say anything about it sending usage statistics or collecting any information about the user.  I think you are missing the point there, it isn't the phoning home that is the problem, it is the fact that it does it and sends personal information back that is the problem.  Microsoft's WGA phoning home does nothing close to that.
> 
> If you actually read the article it says: "no data is exchanged with Microsoft"
> 
> ...


Umm, it tracks exactly the same stats as firefox. IP address, time, version numbers, and your key. (How do you think they got the little Genuine Advantage pop-up to work). Substitute your key for MS, with your blacklisted plug-ins for Mozilla.

The number of users is calculated on their end. (For both Mozilla and MS). There's no other way to calculate number of users.

It's absolutely no different. Now, show me the little detail that I missed where Firefox collects usage statistics.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Umm, it tracks exactly the same stats as firefox. IP address, time, version numbers, and your key. (How do you think they got the little Genuine Advantage pop-up to work). Substitute your key for MS, with your blacklisted plug-ins for Mozilla.
> 
> The number of users is calculated on their end. (For both Mozilla and MS). There's no other way to calculate number of users.
> 
> It's absolutely no different. Now, show me the little detail that I missed where Firefox collects usage statistics.



The number of users that Firefox collects, is the number of user on the machine that user it.  It isn't calculated on their servers.  Microsoft also doesn't collect the amount of time the product is used, firefox does.  The IP address is pretty obvious, it is an incoming connection, you can assume every incoming connection to anywhere is being logged somewhere, so no really big deal there.  However, Microsoft does not collect any usage statistics.  It doesn't collect what times I was using the product every day, Firefox does, it doesn't collect data on what software I have install on Windows, firefox collects data on what Plug-Ins I have.  Microsoft doesn't send the total number of users of the software, Firefox does.

Appearently you missed the part of the article where they state "no data is exchanged with microsoft".  How do you get that they send usage statistics on a daily basis if no data is sent to microsoft?  The only thing that is collect is the IP, and that isn't actually sent my WGA, it is collected at microsoft's sever by reading it from the incoming connection.

Firefox is sending usage statistics, Microsoft isn't.  Until you show me something otherwise.  WGA is totally different from what Firefox is doing.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 1, 2008)

hey lets get back on track!

as from me who cares if you want to blow this out of proportion go download IE7


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

cdawall said:


> hey lets get back on track!
> 
> as from me WHO THE FUCK CARES if you want to blow this out of proportion go download IE7



I already have IE7, why wouldn't I?  Who would stick with that unsecure POS IE6.  If you don't care that firefox is spyware, then move along you have no reason to be here.  But there are people, like me, that care when a piece of software is spying on them.  Remind me to start posting "WHO THE FUCK CARES" in your topics that I think are BS and I couldn't really care less about.

Now leave the topic, if you don't care about it, don't post.  Some people do.  No one really gives a fuck that you don't care about your security.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> I already have IE7, why wouldn't I?  Who would stick with that unsecure POS IE6.  If you don't care that firefox is spyware, then move along you have no reason to be here.  But there are people, like me, that care when a piece of software is spying on them.  Remind me to start posting "WHO THE FUCK CARES" in your topics that I think are BS and I couldn't really care less about.
> 
> Now leave the topic, if you don't care about it, don't post.  Some people do.  No one really gives a fuck that you don't care about your security.



its still secure not only can you disable the part *your having the issue with* easily with instructions from mozilla!

also were is it a security threat? i'm just wondering what your all worked up about the fact that it phones home or what cause every MS product after 3.1 does that they are called updates


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

cdawall said:


> its still secure not only can you disable the part *your having the issue with* easily with instructions from mozilla!
> 
> also were is it a security threat? i'm just wondering what your all worked up about the fact that it phones home or what cause every MS product after 3.1 does that they are called updates



Easy to disable for ME, but not for my grandmother, or most other computer users.  And again the issue isn't just with the action.  It is with how Mozilla went about implementing it.

Again, if you would pay attention, sending usage statistics is perfectly fine IF the user is informed about it, and given the option to disable it during the software install or when the software is first run(Mozilla does none of this).  People shouldn't have to go to Mozilla's site and read instructions to figure out what cryptic option in about:config they need to disable to turn off usage statistic reporting.

And this isn't a discussion about Microsoft, stop trying to make it one, Microsoft has nothing to do with this.  And again, they don't do anything like this, you have failed to even begin to prove that point of your argument, why do you keep trying to use it?  Microsoft's products do not collect and send usage statistics without first informing the user and giving them the option to disable it.  So stop trying to compare what Mozilla is doing to what you believe Microsoft does, because you can say Microsoft does it until you are blue in the face, it doesn't make it true.  Show me some proof that Microsoft does it and then we can talk about it in another topic that is actually about Microsoft.


----------



## Polaris573 (Jul 1, 2008)

Please discuss topics in a civil manner.  If you cannot do this the thread will be closed and infractions dispensed.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Easy to disable for ME, but not for my grandmother, or most other computer users.  And again the issue isn't just with the action.  It is with how Mozilla went about implementing it.
> 
> Again, if you would pay attention, sending usage statistics is perfectly fine IF the user is informed about it, and given the option to disable it during the software install or when the software is first run(Mozilla does none of this).  People shouldn't have to go to Mozilla's site and read instructions to figure out what cryptic option in about:config they need to disable to turn off usage statistic reporting.
> 
> And this isn't a discussion about Microsoft, stop trying to make it one, Microsoft has nothing to do with this.  And again, they don't do anything like this, you have failed to even begin to prove that point of your argument, why do you keep trying to use it?  Microsoft's products do not collect and send usage statistics without first informing the user and giving them the option to disable it.  So stop trying to compare what Mozilla is doing to what you believe Microsoft does, because you can say Microsoft does it until you are blue in the face, it doesn't make it true.  Show me some proof that Microsoft does it and then we can talk about it in another topic that is actually about Microsoft.



you know what i honestly don't care so it says when i used the program it says nothing a out how or what i used it for so whats it hurting if anything else they are using it to _improve_ FF is that so bad? also you brought up your grandmother why don't you ask her if she cares if mozilla says how often she gets online cause i'm pretty sure every ISP does the same things its how they get usage statistics. so what is mozilla doing that invades *your* privacy exactly?  cause i'm curious



and every time you upload an error report it says exactly what you were using and what happened when your computer crashed


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Most spyware doesn't worry about your bank/transaction work.  Does that magically not make it spyware?  Just because it is harmless, doesn't make it acceptable.  Collecting and sending usage statistics without the user's knowledge is unacceptable.



Something that is harmless is unacceptable?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

cdawall said:


> you know what i honestly don't care so it says when i used the program it says nothing a out how or what i used it for so whats it hurting if anything else they are using it to _improve_ FF is that so bad? also you brought up your grandmother why don't you ask her if she cares if mozilla says how often she gets online cause i'm pretty sure every ISP does the same things its how they get usage statistics. so what is mozilla doing that invades *your* privacy exactly?  cause i'm curious
> 
> 
> 
> and every time you upload an error report it says exactly what you were using and what happened when your computer crashed



I've already listed what they do that invade my privacy.  They don't need to know what time I use their browser, and they don't need to know what users on my machine are using their software.  Both invasions of my privacy.  My ISP probably does track my usage, but I can't exactly stop that, it is one of those universal bad things that I don't like but I have to deal with.  I can choice not to use Firefox, and that is what I have done.  Just because other's do something that is wrong, that doesn't mean it is OK for everyone to do it.  If I can avoid it, I will, which was the point of this topic.  There are people out there that are just like me and will avoid a piece of software if they can because it is spyware, others don't care.  If you are in the don't care category, you have reason to continue to post.

But you have the option to not upload an error report, I never send error reports.



Ravenas said:


> Something that is harmless is unacceptable?



If it invades people's privacy, yes it is unacceptable.


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> If it invades people's privacy, yes it is unacceptable.



If it were to invade your privacy (which according to you it does) then it would cause harm. (according to you) Thus you consider anything that compiles usage data harmful, unless it tells you?

In otherwords, you would get mad at McDonalds if you spilt their hot cofee on yourself, unless it had a warning label?


----------



## iamollie (Jul 1, 2008)

wow you really are taking this privacy thing to a whole new level. I would consider collecting something like my email address, name and telephone an invasion of my privacy.
Anyway have you read the end user agreement its probably in there somewhere/


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> If it were to invade your privacy (which according to you it does) then it would cause harm. (according to you) Thus you consider anything that compiles usage data harmful, unless it tells you?
> 
> In otherwords, you would get mad at McDonalds if you spilt their hot cofee on yourself, unless it had a warning label?



No gathering usage statistics is harmless.  Doing it without telling users is unacceptable.

Your McDonald's example is flawed.  Not spilling hot coffee on yourself is common sense.  It is common knowledge that coffee is hot, so you don't spill it on yourself.  It is not common knowledge that software collects usage statistics.


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> No gathering usage statistics is harmless.  Doing it without telling users is unacceptable.
> 
> Your McDonald's example is flawed.  Not spilling hot coffee on yourself is common sense.  It is common knowledge that coffee is hot, so you don't spill it on yourself.  It is not common knowledge that software collects usage statistics.



If we know that the particular software collects user data, isn't it common knowledge?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> If we know that the particular software collects user data, isn't it common knowledge?



Yes, but up until now, we don't know.  And for it to be common knowledge, the common person has to know it.  Do you think the common firefox user knows firefox is collecting usage data?


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, but up until now, we don't know.  And for it to be common knowledge, the common person has to know it.  Do you think the common firefox user knows firefox is collecting usage data?



What do you mean? It's all right here: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/privacy/firefox-en.html


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, but up until now, we don't know.  And for it to be common knowledge, the common person has to know it.  Do you think the common firefox user knows firefox is collecting usage data?



They should, they hit the accept button when presented with the EULA.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, but up until now, we don't know.  And for it to be common knowledge, the common person has to know it.  Do you think the common firefox user knows firefox is collecting usage data?



want to know what else FF collects?



			
				YOUR USER AGREEMENT said:
			
		

> Firefox 1.0 – 2.x.
> 
> For these earlier versions of Firefox, “Talkback” is Firefox’s crash reporting feature. Talkback also collects Personal Information (including your name, email address) and Potentially Personal Information (including your IP address, your computer’s name, and the processes you were running at the time of the crash). You can selectively disable the sending of this information. Additionally, you have the option to include the URL of the site you were visiting when Firefox crashed, a comment, and your email address in the report. Mozilla only makes Non-Personal Information and Potentially Personal Information in the public reports available online at http://talkback-public.mozilla.org/.
> Firefox 3.0 to 3.x.
> ...


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> What do you mean? It's all right here: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/privacy/firefox-en.html





Ravenas said:


> They should, they hit the accept button when presented with the EULA.



No where in there does it mention the Plug-In Blacklist feature phoning home daily with your usage data.

Unless I read something wrong, care to point out where it mentions this feature?



cdawall said:


> want to know what else FF collects?



Again, you can choose not to send reports, and I never do.

*I'm done arguing about this.  The program is spyware, if you don't care, move on and keep using it.  The information is for people that do care.  I'm not arguing about it anymore.*


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> No where in there does it mention the Plug-In Blacklist feature phoning home daily with your usage data.
> 
> Unless I read something wrong, care to point out where it mentions this feature?



http://support.mozilla.com/fr/kb/Firefox+makes+unrequested+connections


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> *I'm done arguing about this.  The program is spyware, if you don't care, move on and keep using it.  The information is for people that do care.  I'm not arguing about it anymore.*



What you should be argueing about is the potential chances of a virus exposing the talk-back features. However, I haven't came accross those viruses yet.

And people like you go around wanting Mozilla to make everything they do more public, when actually it's probably best to keep these features somewhat hidden.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> http://support.mozilla.com/fr/kb/Firefox+makes+unrequested+connections



hey look there it is








and look i fixed mine!!!


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 1, 2008)

Oh noes!  It's not Microsoft we should've been fearing all this time -- it was Firefox!  






Give me a farkin' break.  I agreed with you and thought you had a point at first until you started defending Microsoft like they're a bunch of saints -- now, no matter what Firefox is doing, I can't help but think that Microsoft is doing far, far worse.

Go ahead -- call me "close-minded" and say I'm avoiding the argument.  Funny thing is, I've got good reason to believe that Microsoft is doing much worse -- that little fact that the company is a convicted criminal and all that.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

I'm not defending Microsoft, I'm saying it has nothing to do with this topic.

And an anti-trust case has nothing to do with spying on people, and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The point about Microsoft and the reason it was brought into the discussion was that they do the same thing, they don't.  They don't even come close to doing the same thing, and if they did they would get blasted by all the Microsoft haters for doing it till the end of the internet.  But Firefox does it, and it is perfectly acceptable.  Microsoft has nothing to do with the topic here, they do some pretty shady shit too, but we aren't here to discuss Microsofts crap.


----------



## thoughtdisorder (Jul 1, 2008)

Well, staying with the topic, nice work finding this Newtekie! There's some pretty interesting info on THIS link regarding the intentions of Mozilla and Project info for their "Crash reporting". Seems legit.

More info here.


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> The point about Microsoft and the reason it was brought into the discussion was that they do the same thing, they don't.  They don't even come close to doing the same thing, and if they did they would get blasted by all the Microsoft haters for doing it till the end of the internet.  But Firefox does it, and it is perfectly acceptable.  Microsoft has nothing to do with the topic here, they do some pretty shady shit too, but we aren't here to discuss Microsofts crap.



So are you saying you hate FireFox, and therefore since no one else is doing it, you are taking it upon yourself to hate on Mozilla? 

I think mdm-adph took it lighter than you put yourself.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> So are you saying you hate FireFox, and therefore since no one else is doing it, you are taking it upon yourself to hate on Mozilla?
> 
> I think mdm-adph took it lighter than you put yourself.



I very rarely hate anything.  I just don't like this practice my Mozilla.  I'm not "hating on" anyone.  I'm trying to inform people that use the software that it is collecting data without their concent, making it spyware.  I'm not saying I hate Firefox or Mozilla.  I won't use Firefox or Thunderbird because of this, and all the computers at work that I manage will have firefox and thunderbird banned from use also because I don't tolerate spyware.  However, I think, with the exception of this issue, Firefox and Thunderbird are great pieces of software.  If they fix the issue I will have no problem going back to using them and allowing the computers I manage use them also.


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> If they fix the issue I will have no problem going back to using them and allowing the computers I manage use them also.



The point is there is nothing Mozilla is doing wrong, and thus they have no need to fix anything. If you would like to turn the features off that collect data, they openly tell you how. Where's the fuss? If you care this much, turn the features off...


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> The point is there is nothing Mozilla is doing wrong, and thus they have no need to fix anything. If you would like to turn the features off that collect data, they openly tell you how. Where's the fuss? If you care this much, turn the features off...



The fuss is that they don't openly tell you about it from the moment you install the software, and they don't give you the option to turn it off before you start using the software.  If it wasn't for the article I posted, no one would really know about it.


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> The fuss is that they don't openly tell you about it from the moment you install the software, and they don't give you the option to turn it off before you start using the software.  If it wasn't for the article I posted, no one would really know about it.



Lol...The point is the article you posted tells you how to turn it off! Yet you just simply uninstalled it from your system. Did you read your own article?



> More info on this feature over on the Mozilla support site (this link also shows you how to disable this phone home feature).



Furthermore, I found out how to disable it via 5 mins of Google, without the article at hand.


Thus, that's why I think you are anti-firefox. Because you took an article, and in simple terms, made it into a thread telling people you uninstalled the software, rather than showing people the fix.

Still though, the information is in the EULA and the privacy statement. Furthermore, the author of your source tells you how to disable the feature, and so does Mozilla openly.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> Lol...The point is the article you posted tells you how to turn it off! Yet you just simply uninstalled it from your system. Did you read your own article?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



thank you so much for posting that


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

I don't remember telling anyone to uninstall it.  Care to point out where I have?  I said that was the action I have taken, I didn't recommend or tell anyone to do the same.  Yes, I could have simply disabled it, but why should I have to?  I would much rather just use a different browser, there are plenty of good ones out there.  I don't want to support a piece of software that is spyware, so I uninstalled it, that is the easiest way to not support it.  I haven't told anyone else to do the same, I left it entirely up to them to deside what to do.  You took me pointing out a negative about firefox and twisted it into me bashing it and telling everyone to uninstall it...what does that say about you?

It is very easy to disable, I know that, I'm not arguing that.  The point is that I have to disable it, and that Mozilla isn't up-front about telling users that it is there.  It is not in the EULA, and it is not in the Privacy Statement, neither of these mention the Black-Listed Plugin's feature that phones home on a daily basis.

Do you think if you walked up to 1000 people and asking them if Firefox sends usage data back home on a daily basis they would know it did?  No.  999 of them would say it doesn't, or they didn't know it does.


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> I don't remember telling anyone to uninstall it.



I never said you did, I said that YOU said you uninstalled, not that you told people to.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

Well then what is the big fuss if I uninstalled it?  What does that matter one bit to you?  And the fix, as you pointed out, was in the article I posted.  So yes, I did post it also.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> I never said you did, I said that YOU said you uninstalled, not that you told people to.



well actually word for word he did tell people to uninstall it everyone who uses a computer under his control as a matter of fact 



newtekie1 said:


> Well, I know what just got uninstalled off all of my systems, and banned from all the computers I manage at work.


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Well then what is the big fuss if I uninstalled it?  What does that matter one bit to you?



It doesn't. I just said it shows your bias and your lack of informing people about the fix. It's almost as if you didn't read the article you sited.


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 1, 2008)

cdawall said:


> well actually word for word he did tell people to uninstall it everyone who uses a computer under his control as a matter of fact



LOL TRUE!



> Well, I know what just got uninstalled off all of my systems, and banned from all the computers I manage at work.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

cdawall said:


> well actually word for word he did tell people to uninstall it everyone who uses a computer under his control as a matter of fact



Actually, I uninstalled it for them(or more specifically forced it to uninstall next time they log in) and prevent them from installing it again.  However, when they are on my computers, they follow my rules.  They can do whatever they want on their computers, I didn't tell them to do shit with their hardware.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> LOL TRUE!



figured that would make you laugh 



newtekie1 said:


> Actually, I uninstalled it for them(or more specifically forced it to uninstall next time they log in) and prevent them from installing it again.  However, when they are on my computers, they follow my rules.  They can do whatever they want on their computers, I didn't tell them to do shit with their hardware.




that wasn't a quip at you i just thought the thread needed some humpr and that worked pretty well IMO


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Actually, I uninstalled it for them(or more specifically forced it to uninstall next time they log in) and prevent them from installing it again.  However, when they are on my computers, they follow my rules.  They can do whatever they want on their computers, I didn't tell them to do shit with their hardware.



Indirectly, you told them.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> Indirectly, you told them.



 I guess we can agree on that. 

Anyway, the information has been provided, do with it as you will.  I'm not arguing about it.


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> I guess we can agree on that.
> 
> Anyway, the information has been provided, do with it as you will.  I'm not arguing about it.



Don't get me wrong, I don't blame you for uninstalling it...If it were my office, I would block everything from be downloaded without my permission.


----------



## blueskynis (Jul 1, 2008)

1. You are accusing Firefox is a spyware, although the information is in the EULA and the privacy statement. More information is available on their site.

2. If you are so techie and all dipped into security and your work depends on being in high security environment you would actually thoroughly read EAULA and other related documents available on the net, until you understand them and are confident into FF security. 

*Don't blame us because you didn't read the EULA and other related freely available stuff regarding FF.*

P.S. I would hardly classify the information being sent to them as personal information thereby violating your privacy.

Sorry for my bad English.


Cheers


----------



## thoughtdisorder (Jul 1, 2008)

blueskynis said:


> 1. You are accusing Firefox is a spyware, although the information is in the EULA and the privacy statement. More information is available on their site.
> 
> 2. If you are so techie and all dipped into security and your work depends on being in high security environment you would actually thoroughly read EAULA and other related documents available on the net, until you understand them and are confident into FF security.
> 
> ...



1) No need to apologize for your bad English as we're a diverse forum geographically and your English is actually not bad. 

2) I don't think anyone intended bashing, Newtekie was simply "putting the word out" and     much "spirited" conversation ensued and has now finally chilled.

3) Most importantly, Welcome to TPU, glad this thread got you off the fence!


----------



## blueskynis (Jul 1, 2008)

thoughtdisorder said:


> 3) Most importantly, Welcome to TPU, glad this thread got you off the fence!



Thanks for the warm welcome 

I think I will enjoy my stay here...


Cheers


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2008)

Welcome, you should enjoy your stay here.  I have for the most part, and I have to say this is one of the most informative forums I have ever encounters.  I think the best part about this forum is that no one really hold a grudge, and most of us respect eachother.  This thread is a perfect example.  We got in a "spirited" discussion, but no one resorted to childish name calling or any other BS that you see in a lot of other forums.  And on top of that, it might seem like cdawall, Ravenas, and I are enimies, but I know that if I needed help either one of them would not hesitate to help and vise versa.  You wouldn't see that on most other forums.

@thoughtdisorder: Thanks, I was just putting the word out, and the discussion got a little "spirited".  Anyway, now that it is "chilled", we can move on.


----------



## psyko12 (Jul 2, 2008)

Well ty for the article, I was just wondering why my firewall kept on detecting mozilla's ip, now I know clearer that it's for the unsafe addon's and update checks. Heh, and it doesn't bother me at all


----------



## imperialreign (Jul 2, 2008)

I don't really see it being that big of an issue - except for the fact that it's immediately enabled without the user having a choice during installation.

IE does the same thing, but the user is given the option if you want to "join the user feedback experience," or whatever it's called, which sends back anonymous info to MS so they are given an idea of how different users operate IE.

IMO, as sketchy as it can be at times, with modern software it's a necessary evil - we want our software to improve and be able to do what we want it too seamlessly, but no one wants to log onto manufacturer's websites and offer product feedback anymore . . . so how do developers know they're moving in the right direction instead of kickstanding if no users ever want to willingly offer feedback?


----------



## Wile E (Jul 2, 2008)

The only reason I feel "spirited" about this, is because having Firefox=spyware in the title will give people the entirely wrong idea about the browser. It does not qualify as spyware in the eyes of the average computer user. Spyware is generally considered to be malicious, this is not. Furthermore, just because you don't want to believe that MS tracks usage, doesn't mean it isn't true. What is true is that both this, and MS's collections are completely harmless.

I think the spyware label should be removed from the title, as this isn't malicious.


----------



## imperialreign (Jul 2, 2008)

Wile E said:


> The only reason I feel "spirited" about this, is because having Firefox=spyware in the title will give people the entirely wrong idea about the browser. It does not qualify as spyware in the eyes of the average computer user. Spyware is generally considered to be malicious, this is not. Furthermore, just because you don't want to believe that MS tracks usage, doesn't mean it isn't true. What is true is that both this, and MS's collections are completely harmless.
> 
> I think the spyware label should be removed from the title, as this isn't malicious.



completely agree

for anyone wanting to complain it's unnecessary with FF or IE - stop to consider that without such practices, our browsers wouldn't be a versatile and secure as they are today.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 2, 2008)

imperialreign said:


> completely agree
> 
> for anyone wanting to complain it's unnecessary with FF or IE - stop to consider that without such practices, our browsers wouldn't be a versatile and secure as they are today.



I agree it's not necessarily a bad thing, and may serve a good function, but it treads on thin ice to me. It could be analogous to saying we are more secure if the government taps our phones. They don't have to listen in, but they keep tabs on what numbers you call, how long your on the phone, and if they wanted to could pull other information, such as who you were calling, and whether certain words were used, they probably could. Now, that wouldn't really be harmful (assuming your not planning on attacking the government) and would be initiallized to help us, but it's very close to a line I don't really want to be crossed freely. If something of this nature is done, I think it should be completely open, honest, and forthcoming. Otherwise, it borders on invasion, irregardless of it's use.

It's not spyware, but it's capabilities are questionable.


----------



## pt (Jul 2, 2008)

glad i ditched ff for opera a long time ago


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 2, 2008)

pt said:


> glad i ditched ff for opera a long time ago



Hey read the fine print. I very much doubt this is a ff exclusive, opera may very well have a similar hidden function. Really, this is something that probably has and will happen a lot w/ our technological situation. Hopefully companies will be forthright w/ this kind of thing though. We need a new definition for privacy.


----------



## imperialreign (Jul 2, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> I agree it's not necessarily a bad thing, and may serve a good function, but it treads on thin ice to me. It could be analogous to saying we are more secure if the government taps our phones. They don't have to listen in, but they keep tabs on what numbers you call, how long your on the phone, and if they wanted to could pull other information, such as who you were calling, and whether certain words were used, they probably could. Now, that wouldn't really be harmful (assuming your not planning on attacking the government) and would be initiallized to help us, but it's very close to a line I don't really want to be crossed freely. If something of this nature is done, I think it should be completely open, honest, and forthcoming. Otherwise, it borders on invasion, irregardless of it's use.
> 
> It's not spyware, but it's capabilities are questionable.



I agree with this side of it as well - I'm not 100% sure in regards to IE, but I'm fairly certain if the "user experience" thing is enabled, it doesn't send back your IP or any "sensitive" info, only your browsing habits.

FF method seems a bit more extreme, IMO, but still, as you mentioned, it's capabilities are questionable . . . my thought, though, is what is there to prevent malware from exploiting the code and redirecting the personal info packets back to the evil banditware hideout?


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 2, 2008)

Seriously -- even though I now know how to turn it off, I'm leavin' it on.  I do a lot of Firefox related development, and I frequently find myself downloading development copies of extensions directly off of the authors' webpages (because they haven't been uploaded to addons.mozilla.org yet, usually).  I'm glad that something like this is there, just so that it can provide an extra layer of protection in case I start downloading an extension somewhere which has a wee bit of nasty code in it that I don't know about. 

And just for the record, I actually like IE7's "phone home" properties, especially where it relates to tracking malicious "spoof" sites.  For the record, though -- when I remember opening up IE7 on my dev copy of Vista, I sure as hell don't remember having to click any box requiring me to "approve" that feature; it was already enabled by default.


----------



## FatForester (Jul 2, 2008)

I agree with Wile E, the title is pretty much helping the spread of ignorance. I think software that uses these techniques (although harmless) should have a better explanation about what is going on, but in this case Firefox has spelled it out if you want to know (the software IS open source after all). IIRC, there's a link that talks about the privacy policies of Firefox on the page you're downloading, if not in the installer itself. If I'm that worried about my privacy, I might as well stop using Windows, stop going to Google, stop using the internet entirely, blow up my computer, stop using a bank, never buy anything ever again, stop watching TV, destroy my cell phone, change my identity and never talk to anyone ever again. 

Ok, that was probably a bit much.


----------



## pt (Jul 2, 2008)

FatForester said:


> I agree with Wile E, the title is pretty much helping the spread of ignorance. I think software that uses these techniques (although harmless) should have a better explanation about what is going on, but in this case Firefox has spelled it out if you want to know (the software IS open source after all). IIRC, there's a link that talks about the privacy policies of Firefox on the page you're downloading, if not in the installer itself. If I'm that worried about my privacy, I might as well stop using Windows, stop going to Google, stop using the internet entirely, blow up my computer, stop using a bank, never buy anything ever again, stop watching TV, destroy my cell phone, change my identity and never talk to anyone ever again.
> 
> Ok, that was probably a bit much.









basically genehackman on "enemy of the state"


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 2, 2008)

I know anyone can say what they want but...

Hey pt, do you have anything legitiment to say about this topic? Thus far you've just been poking little comments here and there...Like the "I'm glad I ditched FF" comment, why do you just add to the fire when you really have yet to actually add any arguement? Just curious.


----------



## paybackdaman (Jul 2, 2008)

4.  PRIVACY POLICY. You agree to the Mozilla Firefox Privacy Policy, made available online at http://www.mozilla.com/legal/privacy/, as that policy may be changed from time to time.  When Mozilla changes the policy in a material way a notice will be posted on the website at www.mozilla.com and when any change is made in the privacy policy, the updated policy will be posted at the above link.  It is your responsibility to ensure that you understand the terms of the privacy policy, so you should periodically check the current version of the policy for changes.

I just found this. click on that link, it tells you that it does this. I don't know what the fuss is about as it is in the EULA...nobody bothers to read through it, but if they did it would be common knowledge.


----------



## NinkobEi (Jul 2, 2008)

quoted from one of the links posted on the first page:

"If your machine is infected with a virus, trojan, or spyware, then Firefox's internet connection may be being piggybacked in order for the malware to communicate with its author or to deliver adverts onto your machine, etc."

I guess that's true with any program that connects to the internet, though...MMORPGs anyone?


----------



## JoshBrunelle (Jul 2, 2008)

I would have to be under the assumption that every person making their claims on this thread have thoroughly read through the agreement that no one ever reads before installing. I have not, but just like back in the day when xbl went down and people flipped out, it says it all in the agreement everyone agrees to, but no one reads.

Please, can someone read this thing to find out if there is any reference to such data collecting. I don't think it's a big deal, but apparently some people do.

EDIT: Damn wish I read through the whole thread before I posted that, thanks payback, I knew there would be something.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 2, 2008)

paybackdaman said:


> I just found this. click on that link, it tells you that it does this. I don't know what the fuss is about as it is in the EULA...nobody bothers to read through it, but if they did it would be common knowledge.



We've gone over this, no where in the privacy policy does it mention the Plug-In Blacklist phoning home daily and reporting usage statistics.



Wile E said:


> The only reason I feel "spirited" about this, is because having Firefox=spyware in the title will give people the entirely wrong idea about the browser. It does not qualify as spyware in the eyes of the average computer user. Spyware is generally considered to be malicious, this is not. Furthermore, just because you don't want to believe that MS tracks usage, doesn't mean it isn't true. What is true is that both this, and MS's collections are completely harmless.
> 
> I think the spyware label should be removed from the title, as this isn't malicious.



Spyware is spyware, and by the definition, Firefox currently is Spyware.  Spyware does not have to be malicious.

It is true that when people hear the word spyware they usually think of the nasty stuff that screws up your computer.  However, that is really more malware then spyware, the term spyware has been twisted to include malware, but it still includes those little programs that do nothing more than spy on you.

The issue really is just a simple fix for firefox, they just need to include the option in the install to disable this feature.  It will probably happen in the next release now that the fuss has hit the internet.  However, for right now, it is spyware.

As for Microsoft tracking usage, it isn't true, or at least there hasn't been a single piece of evidence to prove it true.  Personally, I don't assume something is happening just because I don't like a certain company.  I don't know why you are still trying to make this issue about microsoft, and you are still making some rather bold claims about them without a single shred of proof to back it up.


----------



## pt (Jul 2, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> Hey pt, do you have anything legitiment to say about this topic? Thus far you've just been poking little comments here and there...Like the "I'm glad I ditched FF" comment, why do you just add to the fire when you really have yet to actually add any arguement? Just curious.



just poiting out that there are other browsers out there with less shady stuff....


----------



## panchoman (Jul 2, 2008)

wow people.. use your common sense.. of course its gonna communicate with the mozilla servers on a regular basis.. its called AUTO UPDATING, it checks your version number and cross references it with mozilla servers to make sure you're using the latest version, it also updates the anti-phising filters from the servers on a regular server. most programs do this.. take nod32 for example, it just updated my virus detection files less then a minute, and it does this on a regular basis, and im preety damn sure that that isn't called spyware.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 2, 2008)

panchoman said:


> wow people.. use your common sense.. of course its gonna communicate with the mozilla servers on a regular basis.. its called AUTO UPDATING, it checks your version number and cross references it with mozilla servers to make sure you're using the latest version, it also updates the anti-phising filters from the servers on a regular server. most programs do this.. take nod32 for example, it just updated my virus detection files less then a minute, and it does this on a regular basis, and im preety damn sure that that isn't called spyware.



That isn't the issue here, the issue is that it is also sending user data to mozilla.  It isn't just connecting and checking version numbers then disconnecting, all programs do that.  Firefox is doing a lot more than just auto updating.


----------



## panchoman (Jul 2, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> That isn't the issue here, the issue is that it is also sending user data to mozilla.  It isn't just connecting and checking version numbers then disconnecting, all programs do that.  Firefox is doing a lot more than just auto updating.



like?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 2, 2008)

panchoman said:


> like?



Did you read the original article?  Do that.  It sends your IP, what time you use the product, and the total number of users of the software.   All information that has nothing to do with auto updating.


----------



## niko084 (Jul 2, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> I
> AFAIK no Microsoft OS phones home on a daily basis reporting usage statistics.  Unless I am mistaken, can you show me where this has been confirmed?




Ohh yes they do....


----------



## panchoman (Jul 2, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Did you read the original article?  Do that.  It sends your IP, what time you use the product, and the total number of users of the software.   All information that has nothing to do with auto updating.



-the total number of users of the software is calculated by the number of ips using the product or similair.
-the ip adress would be registered in any server just by connecting to it. just like how you can see every connection that firefox connects to, mozilla can see every connection to its servers. any time you connect to somewhere, your information is usually logged. the cpanel on my website can give me all kinds of access logs and visitor stats upon request as i please. 
-time of date is just like above, the time that you connected it also logged. 
-the version number is also requested by the server so that the server can direct your browser to the proper updates and send any notifications that are needed.

all of this is neccessary to auto update. your ip adress, time and date, and any other information the server requests is transmitted(applies to any server).

please, use your brain


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 2, 2008)

niko084 said:


> Ohh yes they do....



Prove it or don't make the claim.



panchoman said:


> -the total number of users of the software is calculated by the number of ips using the product or similair.
> -the ip adress would be registered in any server just by connecting to it. just like how you can see every connection that firefox connects to, mozilla can see every connection to its servers. any time you connect to somewhere, your information is usually logged. the cpanel on my website can give me all kinds of access logs and visitor stats upon request as i please.
> -time of date is just like above, the time that you connected it also logged.
> 
> ...



Please use your brain, and eye balls to do some research and read the article at least.  This isn't data that is collected by the server, it is data that firefox collects and sends to the server.

-It isn't calculating the total number of users, at least not by IP.  It sends the total number of user accounts that access firefox.  If you have 3 user accounts in Windows, then Firefox reports back the number 3 as number of users.
-The IP address thing isn't a big issue, like you said it is recorded anyway when you connect to the server.  Though Firefox reports the IP of the box, meaning my private IP if the machine is assigned one.  I don't really care that Mozilla has this information, but why do they need it?
-Again, the time isn't just the time the auto-update was used.  Firefox records the time is is used, and reports this back to the sever.  Again, I don't really care that they have this information, but why do they need it?


----------



## panchoman (Jul 2, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Prove it or don't make the claim.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i seem to have missed the part where firefox collects usage data, and then transmits it to mozilla, can you please help me find that bit?


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 2, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> As for Microsoft tracking usage, it isn't true, or at least there hasn't been a single piece of evidence to prove it true.  Personally, I don't assume something is happening just because I don't like a certain company.  I don't know why you are still trying to make this issue about microsoft, and you are still making some rather bold claims about them without a single shred of proof to back it up.



I don't assume something is happening just because I don't like a certain company, either.

However, I _do_ assume something is happening if a company/person/entity is a convicted criminal, since it's already been proven in court that they *don't have your best interests at heart* -- and you can't call a person unreasonable for thinking that, either.  It's called recidivism, and it's the reason why judges keep seeing the same people brought to court again and again.

I know you're going to accuse this of being off-topic, but I think the point needs to be made that it is _not_ unfair to look at Mozilla and Microsoft in different lights, even though they may be doing the same thing -- hell, or even if they're not, though convicted criminals are usually slightly better at hiding their crimes the second time around.


----------



## mon74 (Jul 2, 2008)

HHMMMM.... All of this got me thinking if the forum is also spyware, sometimes i got a little gadget that shows my ISP, IP, OS and my browser...


----------



## panchoman (Jul 2, 2008)

^^ a great example of how servers log all of the stuff, all of that information is transmitted by the browser/detected by the script the program runs on. like is said, its just auto updating and the server logs connections that firefox makes, giving it version information, time, date, ip, os, etc.


----------



## blueskynis (Jul 2, 2008)

I found out that article text in link that OP posted is somewhat modified than original text being quoted:

Original text at reddit.com (http://www.reddit.com/info/6oz9u/comments/):


> I noticed that Thunderbird would, for no reason at all, sometimes try to contact a server over SSL. I looked up the ip address 63.245.213.32 and found it belonged to Mozilla.
> 
> On researching the problem further I found that the cause of the connection is a feature that can only be disabled from the about:config configuration page.
> 
> ...



OP article (http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2143):


> Several of you have emailed me to let me know of a Firefox and Thunderbird feature that you might not be aware of  - both applications phone home on a daily basis.
> 
> Here’s the info as posted on Reddit:
> 
> ...



It looks like red parts of the text are added to original text.


----------



## thoughtdisorder (Jul 2, 2008)

^^The red text is the writers experience and findings. It is just a way for him to distinguish his words from Mozilla's. 
(If you read the very last line he states,"Personally I'm not fussed....")


----------



## imperialreign (Jul 2, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> As for Microsoft tracking usage, it isn't true, or at least there hasn't been a single piece of evidence to prove it true.  Personally, I don't assume something is happening just because I don't like a certain company.  I don't know why you are still trying to make this issue about microsoft, and you are still making some rather bold claims about them without a single shred of proof to back it up.



here's the proof: http://www.microsoft.com/products/ceip/en-us/default.mspx

with IE7, after a new install (not sure on Vista as IE7 is shipped), but you get a runonce page the first time you open IE; you'll see a box split with two options in it, the lower section will have an arrow on the right hand side to scroll through 4 differen options; option 4 is for the CEIP.

The only way I know of to opt back out later on, if you joined up with IE7 - is to go to options>advanced>resotre advanced settings, and then hit reset all settings - it'll go back through the runonce next time you load up, and you can opt out.


----------



## blueskynis (Jul 2, 2008)

thoughtdisorder said:


> ^^The red text is the writers experience and findings. It is just a way for him to distinguish his words from Mozilla's.
> (If you read the very last line he states,"Personally I'm not fussed....")



I'm not sure we do understand each other. I, myself, marked those parts of the text in red so it will be easier to distinguish original and modified quote of original text. If you read OP linked article you will not be able to distinguish writers words from Mozilla's, but instead you will see the whole text marked as quote.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 2, 2008)

mdm-adph said:


> I don't assume something is happening just because I don't like a certain company, either.
> 
> However, I _do_ assume something is happening if a company/person/entity is a convicted criminal, since it's already been proven in court that they *don't have your best interests at heart* -- and you can't call a person unreasonable for thinking that, either.  It's called recidivism, and it's the reason why judges keep seeing the same people brought to court again and again.
> 
> I know you're going to accuse this of being off-topic, but I think the point needs to be made that it is _not_ unfair to look at Mozilla and Microsoft in different lights, even though they may be doing the same thing -- hell, or even if they're not, though convicted criminals are usually slightly better at hiding their crimes the second time around.



There are several things wrong with your statement.  I go through them, so next time you don't seem to ignorant.

The first most glaring false statement is that Microsoft is a convicted criminal.  They are not.  The Anti-Trust lawsuit that you referring to was not a criminal case, it was a cival case.  Being found guilty in a cival case does NOT make you a convicted criminal, they would have had to be found guilty in a criminal case.

The second problem is that when you look at the details of the case, you will see it has nothing really to do with negative behavior.  The case was entirely based on the fact that Microsoft bundled IE with Windows.  Anti-Trust lawsuits like this are complete BS and I think a lot of people would agree with me.  It is stupid and inane to say a company can't bundle its own free software with its OS.    What kind of example does that set?  Should we strip the calculator out of Windows too?  Should Apple be forced to strip their iLife suite out of OSX?  It has nothing to do with Microsoft not having our best interest at heart.  Personally, I think they do have our best interest at heart when bundling a browser with their OS.  The OS loses some functionality without a browser, and a loss of functionality is a bad thing, I don't know how you could mistake it for a good thing.

The final problem is that at the end of that case they were not actually guilty.  The great thing about a Cival case, as opposed to a criminal case, is that the person deciding the case is the judge and the judge alone.  The apeals judge overturned the first judges ruling due to the first judge acting inappropriately.  If the rulling is overturned in apeals, then they aren't guilty.  A court date was set to handle a retial, and a judge was appointed, however before the new trial Microsoft settles with the DOJ.  A settlement is not an admition of quilt.


imperialreign said:


> here's the proof: http://www.microsoft.com/products/ceip/en-us/default.mspx
> 
> with IE7, after a new install (not sure on Vista as IE7 is shipped), but you get a runonce page the first time you open IE; you'll see a box split with two options in it, the lower section will have an arrow on the right hand side to scroll through 4 differen options; option 4 is for the CEIP.
> 
> The only way I know of to opt back out later on, if you joined up with IE7 - is to go to options>advanced>resotre advanced settings, and then hit reset all settings - it'll go back through the runonce next time you load up, and you can opt out.



Yes, but again, the option to disable it is given BEFORE you start using the software.  Looks through the rest of the post and you will see that I am referring to sending usage data without the user knowing(I know I didn't put it in that sentence, but I figured people would be able to figure out what I meant from reading my other posts stating it).  If it gives you the option to disable it the first time you run it, then you know about it.


----------



## imperialreign (Jul 3, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, but again, the option to disable it is given BEFORE you start using the software.  Looks through the rest of the post and you will see that I am referring to sending usage data without the user knowing(I know I didn't put it in that sentence, but I figured people would be able to figure out what I meant from reading my other posts stating it).  If it gives you the option to disable it the first time you run it, then you know about it.





sorry, I hadn't picked any of that up through context 

anyhow, default settings for MS programs seems to be "opt Out," instead of it being enabled by default (I just double checked to be sure, same with Media Player).

Like I had mentioned before, the fact that FF has it enabled by default, and you have to journey into the about:config to disable it is what I have a bit of a problem with as well, but otherwise it's nothing to be too concerned with, IMO.  Hopefully, though, there are no security flaws surrounding that configuration (I figure there isn't though, or else we woudl of heard about this issue long before now as it probably would've been one of the first things exploited).

Kind funny, IMO, if it were IE7 and the CIEP was enabled by default, and one had to go digging into the deeper anals of the browser's settings to disable it, the whole issue would go over like a handgun in a school.


----------



## FatForester (Jul 3, 2008)

It's completely pointless in claiming that Firefox is spyware when they have articles telling you what is going on and how to disable it. The only worthy point in the argument is saying that Firefox doesn't up prompt you about it during the download / install / first boot process. Thing is, the people that care enough about their privacy should care enough to look through the EULA and documents Mozilla has posted regarding the matter. Trying to say they're hiding it is downright ridiculous. Heck, the software is open source!

I really wish this thread would die already.


----------



## thoughtdisorder (Jul 3, 2008)

Apologies, but can't resist......


----------



## theonetruewill (Jul 3, 2008)

I don't see anything wrong? I accepted their EULA- seems to say enough.


----------



## FatForester (Jul 3, 2008)

thoughtdisorder said:


> Apologies, but can't resist......



Yea, I guess making a post saying this is like beating a dead horse IS beating a dead horse in this case.


----------



## thoughtdisorder (Jul 3, 2008)

FatForester said:


> Yea, I guess making a post saying this is like beating a dead horse IS beating a dead horse in this case.



So you know, that wasn't directed at you! It was my sarcastic way of saying the info was laid out for us and we should seek more info, which obviously many of us did. So Newtekie's thread was successful in casting a light on something we should know about. The beating the dead horse part started when the intelligent exchange of idea's and knowledge turned into bickering about who's more correct than the others. That is not important, really.

Bottom line is, we all know something we didn't before, so therefore, it's all good!


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 3, 2008)

imperialreign said:


> Like I had mentioned before, the fact that FF has it enabled by default, and you have to journey into the about:config to disable it is what I have a bit of a problem with as well, but otherwise it's nothing to be too concerned with, IMO.  Hopefully, though, there are no security flaws surrounding that configuration (I figure there isn't though, or else we woudl of heard about this issue long before now as it probably would've been one of the first things exploited).



Yeah, that is the issue I have with it also.  Collecting user data isn't really an issue, if done correctly.



imperialreign said:


> Kind funny, IMO, if it were IE7 and the CIEP was enabled by default, and one had to go digging into the deeper anals of the browser's settings to disable it, the whole issue would go over like a handgun in a school.



Also very true, and I have a feeling some of the same people in this thread saying Firefox has done nothing wrong here, would also be the first ones to bash to a pulp Microsoft if they did the same thing.

And no need to apologize, I know it is a pain to read through pages of text.  I'm sorry I didn't make my post more clear.



FatForester said:


> It's completely pointless in claiming that Firefox is spyware when they have articles telling you what is going on and how to disable it. The only worthy point in the argument is saying that Firefox doesn't up prompt you about it during the download / install / first boot process. Thing is, the people that care enough about their privacy should care enough to look through the EULA and documents Mozilla has posted regarding the matter. Trying to say they're hiding it is downright ridiculous. Heck, the software is open source!
> 
> I really wish this thread would die already.



Again, they don't tell you in the EULA or the Privacy Policy about it.  I have asked several times for someone to show me exactly where it talks about the Blacklist Plug-in option in the EULA or the Privacy Policy and yet no one has been able to do it, and yet the claim is repeatedly made.  You can say water is dry all you want, if you can't prove it, it isn't true.  Show me.  And saying that people that care about security should look up about the feature before they start using the software is kind of inane.  The issue just came to the surface, so before this no one knew about it, there was nothing to research about it, and Mozilla wasn't open about what the Blacklisted Plug-In feature did.  It isn't exactly an option that sounds like something that would send usage data to Mozilla.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 3, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> There are several things wrong with your statement.  I go through them, so next time you don't seem to ignorant.
> 
> The first most glaring false statement is that Microsoft is a convicted criminal.  They are not.  The Anti-Trust lawsuit that you referring to was not a criminal case, it was a cival case.  Being found guilty in a cival case does NOT make you a convicted criminal, they would have had to be found guilty in a criminal case.
> 
> ...



Not a "convicted criminal?"  Well, we can dicker around about official legal definitions all day, but the fact remains that even _if_ Microsoft later got their buddies in the Bush administration to overturn the _ruling_, the findings of fact weren't overturned.  And those findings stated, basically, that Microsoft is a deceitful and irresponsible company and engaged in illegal activity that actually hurts consumers by barring innovation:



> 412. Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products. Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest.



Whether or not you think they had our best interests at heart when bundling a browser is irrelevant -- the courts have said that they didn't.  And if hurting innovation isn't "criminal," then that's sad.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 3, 2008)

mdm-adph said:


> Not a "convicted criminal?"  Well, we can dicker around about official legal definitions all day, but the fact remains that even _if_ Microsoft later got their buddies in the Bush administration to overturn the _ruling_, the findings of fact weren't overturned.  And those findings stated, basically, that Microsoft is a deceitful and irresponsible company and engaged in illegal activity that actually hurts consumers by barring innovation:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not you think they had our best interests at heart when bundling a browser is irrelevant -- the courts have said that they didn't.  And if hurting innovation isn't "criminal," then that's sad.



Correct, the findings of fact were not overturned, they were scheduled to be retried, that trial never happened, so the findings of fact were never confirmed.  Therefor they did not happen.

But, again, this topic is about microsoft.  Stop trying to make it about them.  We understand you hate Microsoft, but that really has not place in this topic.  We understand that you can't handle anyone badmouthing your beloved Firefox, and whenever they do you are quick to try and change the topic to Microsoft bashing to avoid the topic of Firefox's wrong, but again, it has no place here and I will not respond anymore to your poor attempts to bash Microsoft with no evidence of proof to back up your claims.  Take your Microsoft bashing over to a topic about Microsoft.


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 3, 2008)

Page 4-5 everyone is repeating what I said early in this thread. Newtekie I really don't see how you could still be talking about this lol...

Thought disorder is right, you guys are beating a dead horse, except in this case it's a thread.


----------



## FatForester (Jul 3, 2008)

"Correct, the findings of fact were not overturned, but since the trial never happened, the facts weren't truly brought to the surface.  Therefore they couldn't have happened, and since no further actions took place, I shouldn't have to worry about it."

But, again, this topic has long been over.  Stop keeping it alive.  We understand you hate Mozilla, but that really doesn't have a place in this topic.  We understand that you can't handle anyone disagreeing with you, and whenever they do you are quick to cry about it. Arguing for the sake of arguing is stupid. It has no place here and I will not respond anymore to your ramblings. Take your Firefox hatred over to a new topic, and let this one die already.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 3, 2008)

FatForester said:


> But, again, this topic has long been over.  Stop keeping it alive.  We understand you hate Mozilla, but that really doesn't have a place in this topic.  We understand that you can't handle anyone disagreeing with you, and whenever they do you are quick to cry about it. Arguing for the sake of arguing is stupid. It has no place here and I will not respond anymore to your ramblings. Take your Firefox hatred over to a new topic, and let this one die already.



I never said I hated Firefox.  Don't like someone pointing out a negative thing about your beloved browser?  Suddenly if someone says something negative about something they hate it?  If someone says they don't like an aspect of something they suddenly hate it?  I don't like that it spys on me, that doesn't mean I hate it, I just won't use it.  I don't like nVidia's driver program, does that mean I hate nVidia?  I would guess not since I own 2 video cards from them.  I had a problem with ATi's poor Price to Performance in the recent past, does that mean I hate ATi?  I would guess not since I own 3 cards by them.  Intel's netburst architecture sucks hard, does that mean I hate Intel?  No, I own several of their CPUs, including some netburst Celeron D's, in fact cdawall and I had a little competition to try and push our Celeron D's to the highest clock speed.

Pointing out a negative about something doesn't mean you hate it, or even that you think that something is bad.  The ones that try to make is seem like anyone that speaks negative about something hates that something are usually just fanboys.  Guess what category you just proved you are in.


----------



## paybackdaman (Jul 3, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Again, they don't tell you in the EULA or the Privacy Policy about it.  I have asked several times for someone to show me exactly where it talks about the Blacklist Plug-in option in the EULA or the Privacy Policy and yet no one has been able to do it, and yet the claim is repeatedly made.  You can say water is dry all you want, if you can't prove it, it isn't true.  Show me.  And saying that people that care about security should look up about the feature before they start using the software is kind of inane.  The issue just came to the surface, so before this no one knew about it, there was nothing to research about it, and Mozilla wasn't open about what the Blacklisted Plug-In feature did.  It isn't exactly an option that sounds like something that would send usage data to Mozilla.



Protection Against Suspected Forgery and Attack Sites Features. The Firefox forgery and attack protection feature displays a warning if the website you are visiting is suspected of impersonating a legitimate website (commonly referred to as a phishing or forgery website) or a site that infiltrates or damages a computer system without your informed consent, including, without limitation, any computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware, computer contaminant and/or other malicious and unwanted software (commonly called an attack site or malware). By default, Firefox checks the web pages that you visit against a blacklist that is downloaded to your hard drive at regularly scheduled intervals (e.g., approximately twice per hour), the rate of frequency may change from time to time. The blacklist does not include the full URL of each suspicious site. Instead, each URL is hashed (obscured so it can't be read) and then broken into portions. Only a portion of each hashed URL is included on the blacklist on your hard drive. If there is a match, Firefox will check with its third party provider to ensure that the website is still on the blacklist. The information sent between Firefox and its third party provider(s) sends are hashed URLs. If there is a match, Firefox displays either a “Reported Web Forgery” or “Reported Attack Site” alert, as applicable.

You may completely turn off the forgery and/or attack site protection features in Firefox’s preferences. If you do this, none of the information discussed here will be downloaded to your hard drive or sent to any third party service provider. For information about changing your preferences, go to our help page.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jul 3, 2008)

all i can say is:

WTF, who F/ cares?


----------



## oli_ramsay (Jul 3, 2008)

I wouldn't consider this "spyware".  It doesnt invade your privacy or have any negative effects on your browsing experience.... But still:

Opera 9.5 FTW :roackout:


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 3, 2008)

paybackdaman said:


> Protection Against Suspected Forgery and Attack Sites Features. The Firefox forgery and attack protection feature displays a warning if the website you are visiting is suspected of impersonating a legitimate website (commonly referred to as a phishing or forgery website) or a site that infiltrates or damages a computer system without your informed consent, including, without limitation, any computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware, computer contaminant and/or other malicious and unwanted software (commonly called an attack site or malware). By default, Firefox checks the web pages that you visit against a blacklist that is downloaded to your hard drive at regularly scheduled intervals (e.g., approximately twice per hour), the rate of frequency may change from time to time. The blacklist does not include the full URL of each suspicious site. Instead, each URL is hashed (obscured so it can't be read) and then broken into portions. Only a portion of each hashed URL is included on the blacklist on your hard drive. If there is a match, Firefox will check with its third party provider to ensure that the website is still on the blacklist. The information sent between Firefox and its third party provider(s) sends are hashed URLs. If there is a match, Firefox displays either a “Reported Web Forgery” or “Reported Attack Site” alert, as applicable.
> 
> You may completely turn off the forgery and/or attack site protection features in Firefox’s preferences. If you do this, none of the information discussed here will be downloaded to your hard drive or sent to any third party service provider. For information about changing your preferences, go to our help page.



And that has something to do with this discussion why?

That isn't the Blacklisted Plug-in feature, that is an entirely different feature.  That mentions nothing about personal information being sent to Mozilla.  And the Blacklisted Plug-in feature can NOT be turned off in Firefox's preferences, you need to go to about:config to turn it off, two completely seperate things.  Going into the options and turning off the Protection Against Suspected Forgery and Attack Sites Features does not disable the phoning home.



oli_ramsay said:


> I wouldn't consider this "spyware".  It doesnt invade your privacy or have any negative effects on your browsing experience.... But still:
> 
> Opera 9.5 FTW :roackout:



Actually, the whole point is that it does invade your privacy.  It isn't a major invasion, but an invasion none the less.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 3, 2008)

Here's your proof newtekie

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6081286.html

So, if Firefox does this, and you uninstall it, why haven't you quit using windows?


----------



## FatForester (Jul 3, 2008)

newtekie, I don't have a problem with your opinion at all! It's frustrating when you feel you have to keep arguing about the exact same topic like it's a filibuster. You have a tendency to hunt for arguments instead of trying to make a productive discussion, which is sad because you usually bring up some very good and intelligent points, but you don't know how to present them without arguing. If you wanna know what I mean, just look at this thread.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 3, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Here's your proof newtekie
> 
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6081286.html
> 
> So, if Firefox does this, and you uninstall it, why haven't you quit using windows?



How dare you post that!  It's obviously anti-Microsoft propaganda!  Microsoft is a wonderful company -- with our best interests at heart -- and would never do such a thing.

Notice:  I won't agree with closing this thread (even though the dead horse has been beat to a pulp), until it's FUD-inducing title is changed.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 3, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Here's your proof newtekie
> 
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6081286.html
> 
> So, if Firefox does this, and you uninstall it, why haven't you quit using windows?



Read the thread and then stop bringing up things that have already been discussed.  I think this is about the 3rd or 4th time someone has brought up the WGA phoning home article, and every time I have had to repeat myself: It doesn't send microsoft any user data, it it totally different from what Mozilla's products do as they do send user data back to Mozilla.



mdm-adph said:


> How dare you post that!  It's obviously anti-Microsoft propaganda!  Microsoft is a wonderful company -- with our best interests at heart -- and would never do such a thing.
> 
> Notice:  I won't agree with closing this thread (even though the dead horse has been beat to a pulp), until it's FUD-inducing title is changed.



Him posting an article that he believes contributes and relates to the discussion is totally different from you talking about a BS cival court case that in the end Microsoft won and claiming they are convicted criminals because of it and hence shouldn't be trusted.  And because they can't be trusted, it can be assumed that they are doing everything evil in the book, and if one company does something wrong, it can be assumed the Microsoft is doing the same, even if we have no proof what so ever that they are actually doing it.


----------



## Steevo (Jul 3, 2008)

a111087 said:


> the only thing i don't like is sending out everyone's ip address to them
> they should be careful with this



You are sending out your IP address constantly anyway, everytime you visit a site etc.... It is how a website determines where to send the return information to.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 4, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Read the thread and then stop bringing up things that have already been discussed.  I think this is about the 3rd or 4th time someone has brought up the WGA phoning home article, and every time I have had to repeat myself: *It doesn't send microsoft any user data,* it it totally different from what Mozilla's products do as they do send user data back to Mozilla.


It sends your Key, Vendor, and BIOS information, and it did so without being forthright, that is until somebody blew the lid off of it. 

Personally, I see no problem with it, or Firefox doing it. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy. You  said you uninstalled FF because they didn't tell you, or give you the option to disable it during install. Well, neither did MS's wga.

I haven't even brought up Alexa till this point.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 4, 2008)

I've only read parts to this thread... and it really sounds like the definition of 'spyware' has been misused.

It reports usage of a FREE product. It doesnt steal your credit card details or passwords. it doesnt send lists of websites you go to. It doesnt tell them my name or address.
It gives out an IP address? so does going to any website. firing up bittorrent gives a few hundred people your IP, so you better get rid of that too.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 4, 2008)

Mussels said:


> I've only read parts to this thread... and it really sounds like the definition of 'spyware' has been misused.
> 
> It reports usage of a FREE product. It doesnt steal your credit card details or passwords. it doesnt send lists of websites you go to. It doesnt tell them my name or address.
> It gives out an IP address? so does going to any website. firing up bittorrent gives a few hundred people your IP, so you better get rid of that too.



It also sends how many Firefox profiles are on your machine. That's what he's making the big deal about.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 4, 2008)

Wile E said:


> It also sends how many Firefox profiles are on your machine. That's what he's making the big deal about.



you mean the user profiles?

To be honest, thats the kind of info they would need to make the browser better. its not like they report what those profiles are DOING.


----------



## mon74 (Jul 4, 2008)

I've never heard of a spyware that has an EULA...

Having said that, i believe the title of this thread it's wrong, if FF3 has an EULA that tells you what's going on under the hood, in all honesty, we are the lazy ones for not reading the EULA, wich tell us that FF3 is going to collect data for security reasons, and also tell us how to disable it.

So it's not spyware, it's just a browser with a different aproach to debug.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 4, 2008)

spyware has to collect PERSONAL data. none of this can be used against you, or to identify you. the only reason they'd collect IP's is to prevent duplicated info from the same person on multiple OS's/installs.


----------

