Wednesday, December 11th 2024

Firefox Ditches 'Do Not Track' Feature in Version 135 in Favor of 'Global Privacy Control'

Mozilla says that "many sites do not respect" Do Not Track requests, as they rely on voluntary compliance, adding that the feature may actually harm user privacy—likely alluding to the fact that it makes it easier for sites to fingerprint and track you. As such, as of Firefox version 135, Mozilla will disable the Do Not Track feature. As a replacement for the feature, Mozilla recommends using the more advanced "Tell websites not to sell or share my data" toggle built into Global Privacy Control, which it says is more widely respected and backed by law in some regions.

This is also just the latest in a long line of changes to both Firefox and web privacy, at large. For one, Google recently completely removed third-party cookies from its Chrome browser—a move it claims is in support of user privacy but has been widely criticized for putting Google in something of a monopoly position when it comes to tracking the data of Chrome users. Overall, the community feedback on Reddit seems to be either positive or indifferent, although one criticism of the new reliance on Global Privacy Control is that GPC doesn't block Google Analytics tracking requests, although the reasoning behind leaving Google Analytics in-tact is that many sites don't function correctly when it is blocked or disabled.
Global Privacy Control (GPC) is a proposed specification designed to allow Internet users to notify businesses of their privacy preferences, such as whether or not they want their personal information to be sold or shared. It consists of a setting or extension in the user's browser or mobile device and acts as a mechanism that websites can use to indicate they support the specification.
Essentially, GPC in Firefox tells the websites you visit "not to sell or share information about your browsing session on that website," although, notably, it doesn't appear to prohibit the collection of browsing data. According to Mozilla's support page about GPC, certain US states—California, Colorado, and Connecticut are called out specifically—mandate that GPC also be treated as a Do Not Track request, and in other areas, like the EU, UK, Nevada, Utah, and Virginia, GPC grants additional benefits on top of DNT, including opting out of targeted ads and sale of personal data.
Sources: Mozilla Support, Global Privacy Control
Add your own comment

35 Comments on Firefox Ditches 'Do Not Track' Feature in Version 135 in Favor of 'Global Privacy Control'

#26
Tartaros
FrickI use Chrome at work and Firefox at home and I wouldn't say Chrome is any faster really. Not meaningfully so anyway. That said some sites just don't work on Firefox. Filling out like important forms and stuff online usually requires Chrome for me. Some drop down menus don't work right on Firefox, especially not the mobile version.
I'm in the same boat, I used Edge at work pretty much forced because is company policy and Chrome at home, then I went back to Firefox at home after they added support for the RTX video upscale thing after 5 years of not using it. Speed is about the same but you don't have to do tricks to completely erase the cache once you close it and also don't have to deal with adblock ban nonsense. The Chrome ecosystem has become the same stupid and spiteful bullshit towards end users as IE back in the day, they don't offer anything better but also have restrictions. They can go the same dodo path as IE for all I care.
Posted on Reply
#27
Zareek
Space Lynxyes, i agree



people have been saying this for 15 years now, it will be fine, even if it did die, an offshoot would take the lead, like Waterfox or PaleMoon, maybe not as nice, but yeah Chromium will never be king, especially now that v3 update has pissed off so many people :D

Brave will eventually have to move to v3 btw, they can delay it for awhile sure, but eventually their adblocking will suffer because of the v3 chromimum update
I'm definitely concerned about that, hopefully someone figures out something better by then.
Posted on Reply
#28
R-T-B
ymdhissites don't support
Most are legally required to support this or block those states visitors, so of course this is a false comparison. Support is MUCH broader for this.
Posted on Reply
#29
chrcoluk
ymdhisSo they changed the http header that sites don't support (or ignore, or use for fingerprinting) into a different http header that sites don't support (or ignore, or use for fingerprinting). Fucking genius, give the Mozilla CEO another pay raise, I think he/she hasn't gotten one in at least a month.

Pretty much my thought as well. They just moved as this is something newer. I still wont tick that box.

I remember one thing came out Musk's mouth, and it was actually a good idea.

Take the cookie prompts we have now which are only there due to legislation, but make them centralised, so once you select your preference, the law requires websites to honour that preference. It wont be perfect, we will still have the "because you reject tracking cookies we wont let you use our site", but it would be an improvement, I would also enforce a minimum period of time to remember the setting, something like 3 months, and for it survive browser updates as well.

We also need changes to 2FA, every time there is a browser update, suddenly I am considered to be on a "new device" so need to 2FA auth again. Apparently I have used 17 different devices on Nintendo's website, nope I have just used 2.
Posted on Reply
#30
trsttte
chrcolukI would also enforce a minimum period of time to remember the setting, something like 3 months, and for it survive browser updates as well
You're replacing a form of tracking with a new form of tracking. For them to remember that setting they would need a way to identify you and that not happening is the entire reason behind do not track and global privacy control.
chrcolukWe also need changes to 2FA, every time there is a browser update, suddenly I am considered to be on a "new device" so need to 2FA auth again. Apparently I have used 17 different devices on Nintendo's website, nope I have just used 2.
Browser fingerprint changed so it's treated as a new device. That's a good thing, not a problem that needs fixed. The fix would be to open a door to session highjack attacks.
Posted on Reply
#31
chrcoluk
trsttteYou're replacing a form of tracking with a new form of tracking. For them to remember that setting they would need a way to identify you and that not happening is the entire reason behind do not track and global privacy control.



Browser fingerprint changed so it's treated as a new device. That's a good thing, not a problem that needs fixed. The fix would be to open a door to session highjack attacks.
You are right, but it is what it is, better than having constant cookie prompts.

Personally I am currently ok with metrics, telemetry, being tracked. Those in principle now dont bother me that much unless I think its excessive like scanning documents, contacts, network that sort of thing, however I dont like noise, things that slow down browsing, intrusive adverts, extra javascript that sort of thing, and of course constant cookie prompts, so my motivation is cleaning things up rather than hiding my footsteps. Ublock origin as an example I have no privacy filters loaded, just ad and security filters.

Some people seem to have become obsessed with not tracked to the point they are prepared to load up a dozen black lists. break some web sites, devices and what not so they cant be tracked by anything.
Posted on Reply
#32
svan71
I hate Google, but Firefox needs a UI overhaul, it looks like a 90's browser. They have earned their pathetically small share of the browser market.
Posted on Reply
#33
DudeBeFishing
svan71I hate Google, but Firefox needs a UI overhaul, it looks like a 90's browser. They have earned their pathetically small share of the browser market.
I don't see 10+ toolbars on my Firefox.
Posted on Reply
#34
80-watt Hamster
svan71I hate Google, but Firefox needs a UI overhaul, it looks like a 90's browser. They have earned their pathetically small share of the browser market.
I take it you've not loaded up a '90s web browser lately.

My complaint? It's almost TOO modern. Edge, FF and Chrome are barely distinguishable from each other without customization.
Posted on Reply
#35
svan71
80-watt HamsterI take it you've not loaded up a '90s web browser lately.

My complaint? It's almost TOO modern. Edge, FF and Chrome are barely distinguishable from each other without customization.
Yeah if
80-watt HamsterI take it you've not loaded up a '90s web browser lately.

My complaint? It's almost TOO modern. Edge, FF and Chrome are barely distinguishable from each other without customization.
When you compare browsers based on chromium, they do tend to look alike.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Jan 11th, 2025 04:02 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts