I had never heard of these before, but when I go to about:studies, I see that I have never participated in any studies, and when I click the link from that page to "Firefox data collection and use" setting, I see that I am opted out from everything. Pretty sure I didn't do that manually.
Your second link is to a page called "Firefox health report". I have no idea what conclusions I'm supposed to draw from that.
Can you provide more info about the privacy violations you're referring to?
Are you on Linux? Many distributions include their own tweaks to the Firefox package, including disabling data collection.
Are you in the US? I also have not participated in any studies but in the preferences it is marked as active. My guess would be that they either run very few of them or are restricted to the US.
Is it? An ad bundle is downloaded to your pc. Your pc tracks some usage, and stores every analytic locally. Using the analytics, your local client chooses which ads to target you with. You wipe your local data cache, your analytics disappear. I would guess people wished more advertising respected privacy this way.
This seems like much LESS of a privacy nightmare than Google, Facebook, Verizon, Microsoft, Amazon storing a named profile for each person.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1265029
But there are many others, just search "firefox privacy concerns" or similar keywords. Telemetry data -- Pocket suggestions -- etc.
I felt they should have made it an opt-in service that the user can choose on the first launch. Taking away user choice is rarely a good thing, and even less so when dealing with anything privacy related.
The original service was integrated a while ago, but it doesn't really have severe privacy implications. If you click a pocket button, it asks you to log in. If you don't click, it does nothing. This is the one that's hard to disable, but it's an annoyance more than a security problem.
Pocket suggestions are newer, showing articles on the new tab page. They are trivial to turn off, and for what it's worth all the sorting/filtering is done locally.
My point being, even if Pocket is 100% benign and never leaks any user data, the user should still have a say in whether it is turned on by default on a fresh installation. Anything less is user-hostile, a descriptor Mozilla should avoid if possible.
As have I. The entire money making scheme behind it, while innovative, is a privacy nightmare.
> Seriously, if you want a browser that gives you control over your data and privacy, use Firefox. It doesn't do any of this shady nonsense.
Agreed, with the caveat that Firefox does have its own, completely different privacy issues[1][2]. Still, it's probably the best choice for a mainstream browser, and there are open source scripts out there[3] to plug up Firefox's few leaks. I used to use (and recommend) Waterfox as a more secure, private alternative to Firefox, but lately Firefox with Shawn's or a similar script applied is just as good. It's generally better to get FF from your operating system's repository and keep it updated that way rather than manually installing a fork.
[1] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/shield?as=u&utm_source=...
[2] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/#health-report
[3] https://github.com/shawnanastasio/firefox-privacy-restorer