Mozilla's Firefox Terms state that they collect information you input into the browser, including text entered in forms, search queries, and URLs visited. This data is used to provide and improve Firefox features like autofill, search suggestions, and syncing. Mozilla emphasizes that they handle this information responsibly, aiming to minimize data collection, de-identify data where possible, and provide users with controls to manage their privacy. They also clarify that while they collect this data, they do not collect the content of web pages you visit unless you explicitly choose features like Pocket or Firefox Screenshots, which are governed by separate privacy policies.
The blog post argues for a more holistic approach to debugging and performance analysis by combining various tools and data sources. It emphasizes the limitations of isolated tools like memory profilers, call graphs, exception reports, and telemetry, advocating instead for integrating them to provide "system-wide context." This richer context allows developers to understand not only what went wrong, but also why and how, enabling more effective and efficient troubleshooting. The post uses a fictional scenario involving a slow web service to illustrate how correlating data from different tools can pinpoint the root cause of a performance issue, which in their example turns out to be an unexpected interaction between a third-party library and the application's caching strategy.
Hacker News users discussed the blog post about system-wide context, focusing primarily on the practical challenges of implementing such a system. Several commenters pointed out the difficulty of handling circular dependencies and the potential performance overhead, particularly in garbage-collected languages. Some suggested alternative approaches like structured logging and distributed tracing, while others questioned the overall value proposition compared to existing debugging tools. The complexity of integrating with different programming languages and the potential for information overload were also raised as concerns. A few commenters expressed interest in the idea but acknowledged the significant engineering effort required to make it a reality. One compelling comment highlighted the potential benefits for debugging complex, distributed systems, where understanding the interplay of different components is crucial.
Voyager 1, currently over 15 billion miles from Earth, successfully transmitted data using a backup thruster control system not activated since 1981. NASA engineers recently rediscovered the system's functionality and tested it, confirming Voyager 1 can still send scientific data back to Earth via this alternative route. This extends the spacecraft's operational lifespan, though using the backup system requires slightly higher power consumption. While the primary thruster control system remains functional for now, this rediscovery provides a valuable backup communication method for the aging probe.
Hacker News commenters generally expressed awe and excitement at Voyager 1's continued operation and the ingenuity of the engineers who designed and maintain it. Several commenters highlighted the remarkable longevity and durability of the spacecraft, given its age and the harsh environment of interstellar space. Some discussed the technical details of the trajectory correction maneuver and the specific hardware involved, including the attitude control thrusters and the now-resurrected TCM thruster. A few questioned the phrasing of "breaking its silence," pointing out that Voyager 1 continues to send scientific data. Others reflected on the historical significance of the Voyager missions and the small, but important, course correction that ensures continued communication with Earth for a few more years.
Summary of Comments ( 344 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200065
HN users express concern and skepticism over Mozilla's claim to own "information you input through Firefox," interpreting it as overly broad and potentially invasive. Some argue the wording is likely a clumsy attempt to cover necessary data collection for features like sync and breach alerts, not a declaration of ownership over user-created content. Others point out the impracticality of Mozilla storing and utilizing such vast amounts of data, suggesting it's a legal safeguard rather than a reflection of actual practice. A few commenters highlight the contrast with Firefox's privacy-focused image, questioning the need for such strong language. Several users recommend alternative browsers like LibreWolf and Ungoogled Chromium, perceiving them as more privacy-respecting alternatives.
The Hacker News post titled "Mozilla owns 'information you input through Firefox'" sparked a discussion with several comments focusing on the interpretation and implications of Mozilla's terms of service regarding user data.
Several commenters expressed concern over the phrasing in Mozilla's terms, specifically the clause stating that Mozilla owns "information you input through Firefox." They questioned the scope of this ownership, wondering if it encompassed private data entered into forms, browsing history, or even the content of emails composed within the browser. Some argued that this wording was overly broad and potentially misleading, giving Mozilla more rights than necessary. The ambiguity of "input" was a recurring point of contention.
A counter-argument presented by some commenters was that this clause likely pertains to data explicitly submitted to Mozilla, such as crash reports, feedback, or information provided during account creation. They suggested that interpreting the clause as encompassing all user-generated content within the browser would be unreasonable and likely not Mozilla's intent. These commenters often pointed to the necessity of collecting certain data for improving the browser and providing services. Some even drew parallels to other software and online services that collect similar data.
Some commenters delved into the legal aspects, discussing the difference between owning data and having a license to use it. They speculated on the practical implications of this ownership, such as whether Mozilla could commercialize the data or use it for targeted advertising. The lack of clarity on these points in the terms of service was criticized.
A few commenters offered more cynical perspectives, suggesting that this was a standard practice among tech companies and that users should have no expectation of privacy online. Others highlighted the importance of reading terms of service carefully, even if they are lengthy and complex.
The discussion also touched upon the broader issue of trust in tech companies and the increasing concerns surrounding data privacy. Some commenters expressed disappointment in Mozilla, given its reputation for being a privacy-conscious organization.
Overall, the comments reflected a mixture of concern, skepticism, and attempts to clarify the meaning and implications of Mozilla's terms of service. The most compelling comments were those that thoughtfully analyzed the wording of the terms, considered different interpretations, and raised important questions about data ownership and user privacy.