Their limited use of HTTP interception is a published RFC, and I've thought about ways to get around this, and for the use cases they use it for, it seems like the only viable option.
I knew a few of folks who were involved in the BT RST thing, the whole org learned a lot from that, and internal opinions changed.
Consumer contracts? Because Mozilla having a business contract with Comcast is certainly not the same as you having a consumer contract - Mozilla has the resources to drag Comcast to court should they be found to ignore the agreement.
Comcast has proven themselves to be uninterested in adhering to their contractual obligations. You bet your ass they are 1) figuring out how to work around their contract with Mozilla without attracting legal attention, and 2) making contingency plans for winning any resulting lawsuit.
It looks like the punishment for violating mozilla policies would simply be to remove Comcast from the trusted provider group...maybe. Not very impressive.
They do not. Look at Mozilla's 1099 for proof.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Wthayer&a...
You, the end-user, will not get to see Mozilla's contracts. Policies are not contracts.
There seems to be some common misunderstandings about "policies" and tech companies are exploiting them. There is nothing legally binding in a policy and in the case the company deviates from the policy, there is no way for an affected user to "enforce" the policy she thought was being adhered to. This is of course assuming anyone outside the company actually discovers that a policy is being violated. Usually policy violations are non-detectable from outside the company.
Can you imagine Mozilla CEO depleting her own compensation in order to sue a company the size of Comcast? What exactly are the claimed damages in this hypothetical lawsuit? The damages to Mozilla are _____ ? (This PR piece in Ars suggests the deal is solely to protect users. No financial details.) How about the damages suffered by users? (Whoops, they are not parties to the agreement.)
Quite the vivid imagination!
Maybe the "white knight" narrative really does work on some people.
> "BREAKING: Firefox default DNS provider tracks what sites you visit"
^damage to reputation
Why fight Mozilla to let them provide a service which is only going to cost them money to run?
Just like they said they didn't forcibly reset BitTorrent connections (until they did).
Just like they said they didn't silently institute bandwidth caps (until they did).
Just like they said they didn't hijack NXDOMAIN responses (until they did).
Just like they said they didn't intercept plain-text HTTP connections and inject their own traffic into them (until they did).
---
With all due respect, I have personally had contracts with Comcast in the past and have experienced firsthand how well they honor those -- and I am certainly not the only one!
Surely you can understand why, to me and many others, their little agreement with Mozilla doesn't really mean a damn thing?
---
(I know that none of this is your fault and it's obviously nothing personal! I'm sure you're a smart, decent person but I'm also sure that you are well aware of your employer's reputation, their past "misdeeds", and, of course, the generally unfavorable opinion that many, many customers have of them.)