> What "data"? Browsing history? Identity? Something else?
That depends on the Rally study, since research questions differ and studies are required to practice data minimization. Each study is opt in, with both short-form and long-form explanations. Academic studies also involve IRB-approved informed consent. Take a look at our launch study for an example [1].
> Why? What's in it for them? Since when was giving our data to third parties a good idea? There is literally no motivation presented here.
The motivation is enabling crowdsourced scientific research that benefits society. Think Apple Research [2], NYU Ad Observatory [3], or The Markup's Citizen Browser [4]. There are many research questions at the intersection of technology and society where conventional methods like web crawls, surveys, and social media feeds aren't sufficient. That's especially true for platform accountability research; the major platforms have generally refused to facilitate independent research that might identify problems, and platform problems often involve targeting and personalization that other methods can't meaningfully examine.
[1] https://rally.mozilla.org/current-studies/political-and-covi... [2] https://www.apple.com/ios/research-app/ [3] https://adobservatory.org/ [4] https://themarkup.org/citizen-browser
A stronger motivation would be providing a product or service that tangibly adds value to someone's life.
After reading this, I have no idea how Rally would provide any tangible benefits to me.
We don't any more studies or research to know that the best privacy policy is to not collect any data in the first place.
You've replied here with answers to address their (our?) potential concerns, but the commenter never said they had concerns about the project itself, rather that this particular blog post doesn't "sell" or explain the value add well. That's feedback on the project's communication strategy, not on what it's actually doing.
> > Why? What's in it for them? Since when was giving our data to third parties a good idea? There is literally no motivation presented here.
> The motivation is enabling crowdsourced scientific research that benefits society.
You seem to be confusing "theys". The question is what motivates participants, not what motivates researchers.
Contrarily, you seem to be confusing “theys”, yourself.
There exist participants that are motivated by participating in research that benefits society.
Just like there exist individuals motivated by lending their computing resources to the various @Home research efforts.
Nonetheless, much of psychology research conducted in the US has made do with ridiculous sampling bias - the US college student is anecdotally considered to be the most-studied population in the world.
In other words, every thorough study begins with an assessment and revision of the consensus language being used to describe reality.
On that front alone, psychology is one of the most hard sciences around.
Deep learning is directly attributable to psychology research, for what it is worth.
The idea that this will benefit society seems naive to me. I feel like it will only serve to legitimize the practice by putting ostensibly trustworthy faces on the packaging.
As other commenters have noted, then you should decline to opt-in to participating in research such as this.
Oh, well since it “benefits society”...
Tell me, how is it that you filter for the research that benefits society vs the research that doesn’t?
I hate this. Viscerally. Why, why, WHY does every “privacy first” system, platform, whatever, start with the presumption that some people should get your data and it’s just a matter of vetting the “good” groups from the “bad” groups.
No. That isn’t privacy.
No one should get my data. And it’s ridiculous that all of these companies try to position their data grabbing projects as “privacy” oriented when what they really mean is they’re not quite as invasive and/or are slightly more transparent about their data theft compared to others.
</rant>
I find this to be a good definition of privacy:
> Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively. - Wikipedia
From what I've read, Mozilla's Rally gives people the ability to choose what research studies to participate in.
I think there is plenty of discussion to be had about what level of control and granularity works best for different people, but I have confidence that Mozilla has both the right incentives and technical capability to contribute meaningfully in this space.
> improving Mozilla’s existing products and services
> creating and developing new products
All of the marketing copy is about "donating" your data to important research and how "Big Tech has built its success by exploiting your data." Meanwhile Mozilla is doing the exact same thing they're criticizing "big tech" for doing. Tucked away in the fine print is the fact that your data _isn't_ just going to be used for research studies, it's going to be exploited by yet another for-profit tech company. They've just put a nice warm and fuzzy do-gooder wrapper on it.
If Rally is transparent about how your data is used like they claim to be they would either (1) not use your data in that way and exclusively allow the data to be used for research, as advertised, or (2) make it abundantly obvious it will be used that way.
>> creating and developing new products
I agree that these are concerning. They seem out of place. If you want to start a petition asking Mozilla to clarify and/or remove these clauses, I would sign it.
You make it easy for the internet assholes to do this to you. If your HN username is your real name that is a really big problem for your privacy. Your occupation is stated in your profile. Likewise, stating your sex might as well be your privacy's death knell.
Become more anonymous to provide less ammunition to those with nothing more to do than torment others, then continue doing the things you feel are the right things to do without excuse.
You're being combative for no reason so I'll leave it here but, in the future, don't always assume malice.
Some more specific comments:
> You're being combative for no reason so I'll leave it here but, in the future, don't always assume malice.
Saying "no reason" doesn't ring true to me. What one person considers to be (valid) reasons is subjective. In my view, 'reasons' includes a person's identity and experiences.
With that in mind, how do you think this alternative message would have been received... ?
"It was not my intention to chastise you. I meant well in offering some ways to reduce the chances that trolls come after you. Please don't assume malice. I'm happy to listen if you have suggestions on how I could communicate the message more effectively."
Additionally, claiming the self-perceived "undertones" as "the real truth" vs clearly (and reasonably) stated (subsequent) stance/explanation indeed is confrontative, at best. In my opinion and experience.
When X claims they know better what was the intent or tone of Y's message when Y is already there precisely elaborating... X has to be realistic, admit no prior knowledge of Y (nor their idiosyncrasies, nor their style of communication), be aware of the limitations of the medium (no voice tone, no body language), and take things at face value as written (and/or ask for explanation/further details in neutral and a non-confrontational way). Y has to do the same. It really is the only way that maintains functionality of the conversation.
(Also, forseeing a potential conflict: X and Y has nothing to do with bio-sex, it just signifies two unknowns.)
At least, that's the self-defined framework I use, as a probably somewhat autistic/ADHD person (people confuse and frustrate me to no end).
This is quite similar to a concept in psychology called Theory of Mind (ToM):
> Theory of mind as a personal capability is the understanding that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own.
I have a theory: It is relatively more difficult for people who have faced adversity (whether it be from systemic bias and/or personal situations) to make unemotional assessments when conditions relate to those adverse situations.
I would agree, in principle and mostly in practice. However, if one knows better, then they must also know that the same "better" can be done. It is hard, yes, and it takes practice, but is achievable. Exposure therapy of sorts helps immensely. And, if/when feeling overwhelmed, simply ask for a recess and postponement of the discussion. I call it "processing time", and it usually takes a few days, or even longer. I call upon it, when I sense it is required (on my and other side, too).
I also try to familiarize the other side with my own (aforementioned) communication style and idiosyncrasies. I'd say we all seek to at least not be misunderstood, if understanding (in sense of the agreement) is not possible... and being frank and upfront about it - helps.
E: Not quite. You perceived the comment as patronizing. This is not a universal assessment. From my point of view, I didn't find it patronizing. I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong; I'm simply saying it is far from clear cut.
Here is one definition of patronizing that I find useful:
> apparently kind or helpful but betraying a feeling of superiority; condescending
You may think that someone else feels superior to you. That is your assessment, I respect that, and I'll listen. At the same time, it is subjective and is uncertain, because your knowledge is incomplete.
The principle of charity is useful here. I hope you can see alternative interpretations that show N does not perceive himself as superior. In particular, their commentary, in my view, is by and large very thoughtful, with the exception of a few sharp edges (which everyone has). From what I can tell, N's edgier comments came out because they felt attacked.
That's the pattern I see here. A person feels attacked and their communication becomes less charitable and even abrasive. At least two people fell into this trap in this thread. As a community, we don't benefit when this happens, but this is human nature.
The solutions are not easy. In my view, we should try to observe, be thoughtful, and attempt to deescalate tensions. I believe a vast majority of people are here for positive reasons and have plenty to learn from each other.
If Rally was not transparent about this, then you would not have seen that and would not have gotten emotionally triggered by it.
But given that you’ve identified a visceral opposition to that, you should consider not opting-in to that particular study.
Don’t do that here. The comment is about Rally pretending to be about altruistic academic research while actually being a platform for Mozilla product development.
> Sorry, I definitely did not put as much thought into my comment as I should have and I left out the critical piece of information that really ticked me off.
The commenter referenced Rally's privacy policy. It is not specific to a particular study.
Or, just don’t opt-in to any of the Rally studies. Your call, it’s your data.
First, a caveat. I don't know the people behind the comments in this sub-thread. I have read almost all of them and find them to be informative and thoughtful. So thanks for that.
That said, when I read a comment like the above, what I hear is a mentality of "you are an individual, with power, if you don't like it, act individually". That mentality is not wrong, but is quite limited and incomplete. It overlooks the power and importance of individuals discussing and organizing together, which is often much more powerful than simply "voting with your feet".
> It overlooks the power and importance of individuals discussing and organizing together, which is often much more powerful than simply "voting with your feet".
I did indeed purposefully overlook that, but only out of a working assumption that the consent of the governed is there, overall.
If there truly is no consent of the governed for informed consent being a sufficient tool for empowerment in these cases, then there are deeper topics that need to be discussed. Some of those topics could lead to conclusions that may have catastrophic implications for modern society, if not discussed in a reasonable and considerate manner. Cancelling entire industries, in one fell swoop, are some of the conclusions being drawn in the current climate, for example.
If there is consent of the governed that opt-in is a sufficient tool for empowerment in these cases, then these cases may ultimately be logically reducible to failures to uphold the laws, as they currently exist.
To further expound on the latter line of reasoning, these cases seem to anecdotally belong to a few categories: 1) I don’t like advertising, 2) I didn’t know that they could do that, 3) I don’t want anyone watching what I do.
Category 1) is a completely understandable sentiment with implications that I currently lack the energy to comment upon.
Category 2) should be taken as that individual’s human rights having been violated. Specifically, that situation could arguably be pursued in the United States under the ADA. Enforced broadly, this could have catastrophic consequences to modern society. Enforced judiciously, this could provide much needed social progress.
Category 3) is a completely understandable sentiment with implications that I currently lack the energy to comment upon.
The category 2) implications do seem to be most relevant to society, at this juncture.
edit: I can imagine that a class-action ADA lawsuit against a carefully selected set of defendants (if legally possible) could lead to resolution of this matter in the courts, without calling on the legislature to comment on topics for which they are under-qualified to comment upon.
I just reviewed these pages:
[1]: Mozilla Rally Privacy Policy https://rally.mozilla.org/privacy-policy/index.html
[2]: Political and COVID-19 News https://rally.mozilla.org/current-studies/political-and-covi...
Read together, the problematic parts of the general privacy policy are not addressed nor remedied by the specific study's details, because a specific study addresses how that study uses the data.
Perhaps a future study would be different? I doubt it. My take is that the concerning parts of general privacy policy's language will stand (quoted a few messages above). Here's why I say this... Based on my experience with organizations and lawyers, Mozilla is unlikely to want to modify its general privacy policy based on particular discussions with each organization involved in a study; it would be too time-consuming and expensive, and it would create a path-dependence such that every previous study details would need to be reevaluated in the light of a modification to the general policy. Instead, Mozilla probably crafted their privacy policy in a general way, hoping that it will be acceptable to participants and partners. I expect they will modify it as little as possible.
They may ultimately have a legal responsibility to do so, depending on the nature of their contracts with their research partners. I’m not a lawyer, but if I were, I’d be digging into the case law to see if Mozilla + (”public university” or “federal funds”) = “a combination that must meet all severally applicable laws”.
I've seen the opinion expressed that part of the reason society allows this type of surveillance is that so many members of our society don't understand the details or scope. If true, whatever discussions we have about this should include the idea that we're proposing to increase the scope of the problem while researching it.
To dig in one level deeper... Have you looked into privacy-preserving record linkage (PPRL) or similar ideas? (I have not, but I'm interested.)
> The process of linking records without revealing any sensitive or confidential information about the entities represented by these records is known as privacy-preserving record linkage (PPRL). > Source: "Privacy-Preserving Record Linkage". > DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63962-8_17-1
See also: "A taxonomy of privacy-preserving record linkage techniques" at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03064...
That is a non-sequitor, when we are discussing opting-in to social science research.
Rally is not a social network platform. It is a social science platform. There is no reason for it to be directly, as a platform, concerned with your contacts.
Per their FAQ:
> We abide by a series of principles known as Lean Data Practices. Lean Data means that we collect just the data we need, and do everything we can to protect what we collect. Studies only collect data that is essential to creating a broader understanding of a research topic.
Institutional Review Boards, privacy policies, and the various contractual agreements between parties operating and building the Rally research platform would be held to task by scientific principles of treating participants humanely and ethically.
If an IRB deemed that it was unethical to conduct a study due to the design implications indicating that data could be obtained that did not originate from informed consent, then that study would not be able to be conducted and the research design would have to be modified to correct itself or that specific research methodology would be considered to be generally unethical by the wider scientific community, just the same as the scientific community deems it unethical to do genetic experiments on unwilling human subjects.
> That is a non-sequitor, when we are discussing opting-in to social science research.
As I understand it, the commenter's point does not rest on 'contact' linking being present. Their point is that any kind of data linking provides a reindentification risk.
Regarding the risk of data linkages, how confident are you that Mozilla and others with access to the data will manage it ...
1. ... up to the currently-accepted level of knowledge (including hopefully some theoretical guarantees, if possible, and if not, mitigations with known kinds of risk) and ...
2. ... that the current level is acceptable given that history of data privacy doesn't paint a rosy picture?
To be open, I'm not interested in your confidence level per se, but rather the reasoning in your risk assessment. I want to weight the various factors myself, in other words. For example, you appear to have more confidence in IRB's than I do.
Knowing the history of the "arms race" between deidentification and reidentification, I don't put a whole lot of trust in Institutional Review Boards. Many smart, well-meaning efforts have fallen prey to linkage attacks. They are insidious.
P.S. In my view, using "non-sequitor" here is a bit strong, perhaps even off-putting. It is only a "non-sequitor" because you are making different logical assumptions than the commenter. Another approach would be to say "your conclusion only holds if..." This would make your point without being so pointed. It also helps show that you want to understand the other person's assumptions.
It appears that the parent commenter revised its content to indicate that the concern was indeed “your data getting mixed with my data, when browsing Facebook”, to paraphrase.
My response there was essentially: ethical review would have to determine if all data must be provided through informed consent of all the originating humans.
Held to the gold standard of ethics, an IRB would likely have to contraindicate a research design if it did not provide a way for every individual human involved to provide informed consent. If any single individual in a data set indicated that they did not consent, then that data set would need to be reshaped to not include that individual. In lieu of that, the entire data set would have to be excluded from study.
Of course, that has some complex implications, when it comes to broad categories of data sources for browser usage: social networking sites would be a minefield. Did the website author provide consent for their content to be machine analyzed for sentiment, etc., if one really wanted to get down to it. You’d have to consider each and every resource location. Can’t assume that all browser traffic is open web traffic - someone could have left their Rally extension running while navigating to a corporate confidential network, complex copyrights, etc.
My understanding is that the US Supreme Court is about to decide on whether “if you can read it, you can keep it” as a consequence of Microsoft/LinkedIn vs. hiQ Labs, so don’t forget the “arms race” of justice, either.
> Many smart, well-meaning efforts have fallen prey to linkage attacks. They are insidious.
Indeed, even just basic double-blind medical studies are hard to defend when you consider operational security, let alone information security.
My overall point is that if you don’t want data being captured that may provide data about your contacts, then dont opt-in to providing it.
Informed consent is the bedrock upon which social science ethics rests.
Will comment more fully as I find the energy.
"Data De-identification: Possibilities, Progress, and Perils". 2019. https://forge.duke.edu/blog/data-de-identification-possibili...
All scientific research requires data and certain types of research require certain types of data to be useful. I’m personally against ad driven data collection because 1) I don’t think as a whole its outcomes, both first order and second order, are in the long term interests of the viewers or society. However assuming you can trust the data collected and how it is used is only as stated then studies looking to understand online interactions, where more and more of our lives are being lived, with the interest of improving long term outcomes seems like a good thing to me. Of course once the data is out of your hands you loose control over it so it’s good that Mozilla is doing data minimization and aggregation to help reduce the impacts of that.
I guess it really boils down to trust, intent, our ability to choose, and transparency which has not been respected in many cases so I very much do understand the skepticism. Here is to hoping this will be different. So far, in my opinion, this looks to be the case.
Some of the current studies [1]:
- Political and COVID-19 News
- Your Time Online and "Doomscrolling"
Edit: I read your comment [2] in another thread about the privacy policy, and that is a good point. I sent an email to mozilla asking for clarification and if I get a reply I will add it here.
Some people do want others to have their data.
Dropbox is a great example of a successful business that is built on the idea of sharing data.
I don't want anybody tracking what websites I visit, articles I read or facebook videos I watch.
These are two VERY different definitions of "data", mingling the two is not helpful to discourse.
This whole thing is opt-in, is it not? If you don't want to share your information, you simply do not opt-in.
Indeed, data has complex nuances that are sometimes missed.
Let’s not mingle data intended for advertisement with data intended for social science research.
Well those are two different USAGES of the same type of data (tracking). That one is good and the other bad is a different discussion.
In my estimation, that is the current discussion.
"Computer scientists, social scientists and other researchers will be able to launch groundbreaking studies about the web and invite you to participate." Wow. I'm about to make history with a browser add-on!
"Our first study is “Political and COVID-19 News” and comes from the Princeton team that helped us develop the Rally research initiative." Groundbreaking! College students can now make sure that I am adequately fact-checked if I err from the path of truth.
Nope. This is an important point: the type of crowdsourced science that Rally enables is something that researchers couldn't do before. (With the exception of a very small number of teams who made massive investments in building single-purpose crowdsourcing infrastructure from the ground up.)
Rally studies, by contrast, reflect real-world user activity and experiences. In science jargon, Rally enables field studies and intervention experiments with excellent ecological validity.
A few follow up questions:
1. Do you expect the opt-in nature of these studies to impact their findings?
2. To compensate for the voluntary nature of the studies, do you think researchers in general will still be incentivized to find data sources that are less respectful of people's privacy and don't require an opt-in to the study?
The Rally participant population is not representative of the U.S. population—these are users who run Firefox (other browsers coming soon), choose to join Rally, and choose to join a study. In research jargon, there's significant sampling bias.
For some studies, that's OK, because the research doesn't depend on a representative sample. For other studies, researchers can approximate U.S. population demographics. When a user joins Rally, they can optionally provide demographic information. Researchers can then use the demographics with reweighting, matching, subsampling, and similar methods to approximate a representative population. Those methods already appear throughout social science; whether they're sufficient also depends on the study.
> 2. To compensate for the voluntary nature of the studies, do you think researchers in general will still be incentivized to find data sources that are less respectful of people's privacy and don't require an opt-in to the study?
Rally is designed to provide a new research capability that didn't exist before. I don't expect a substitution effect like that.
Rally users are all opt-in. How does that impact the design of a Rally study and the conclusions you can draw from it?
There would be no change in terms of research design and the ability to draw scientific conclusions.
edit: also, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27633212 for details on research design considerations when conducting social science.
So it sounds like a nice shiny cloak for...exactly the kind of data collection nobody actually likes.
Yay for extra steps?
Did the instance you're referencing state it was opt-in then turn out to not be opt-in?
I don't think they are "making sure" as in "enforcing." It sounds like they are observing and reporting, hopefully in an aggregated fashion.
“what data”,for example: https://rally.mozilla.org/privacy-policy/
But, it seems like they’re just tracking browser behaviour, and there’s absolutely zero place for people to add their own data?
Why bother giving it a branded name then? Why not “crowd-sourced browser behaviour study in partnership with ____”?
Why does this appear to be "random" to you? What is your definition of "random"?
Have you tried "putting on a Mozilla hat" and thinking about their priorities and goals? If you do, I think you'll likely see some connections. After you do this for a few minutes, I'm interested if perhaps you can see another point of view.
Also reminds me that their mobile division seems painfully understaffed.[1] After using Firefox Mobile for a year there still isn't even a way to search your history, along with a dozen other pain points I put up with daily. And the most painful issues I bring up are either closed or never get addressed for months, or ever. It makes Chromium-based browsers even more tempting to me, and in cases I've had no choice but to use them for things like caching bugs with stale development assets, but Chrome is really all there's left if we lose Firefox.
I really, really hope that they do not sink the current iteration of mobile Firefox. When I see resources being used on projects like these, I just wish the more pressing issues were prioritized. Firefox is the face of Mozilla.
I sometimes have the same reaction when learning the number of people employed for what I would have otherwise thought to be some meager thing. Then I get reminded about the folks over in external/internal support; marketing; design; IT/infrastructure; legal; compliance; etc.
Here's Mozilla's listing:
That’s the bulk of the team that got layed off, by the way. I think there was some last-ditch effort that was able to preserve the MDN efforts.
It does appear that this piece was written by Mozilla, themselves… on their own blog.
> It does appear that this piece was written by Mozilla, themselves… on their own blog.
Haha! Captain Obvious strikes again. Joking aside, I think the other commenter knew the post was written by someone at Mozilla on the Mozilla web site. Their point, I think, was that the author didn't do a good job of selling Rally.
Could be, yeah.
My estimation is that Mozilla was making a desperately concerted effort to signal that they are not at fault in the Big Tech wars.
As a nerd I can read between the lines—clearly they have come up with some sort of privacy-preserving data collection system that is useful. But at face value this whole article is just saying "hey use Firefox and give your data to scientists for reasons we don't bother to explain because obviously it's good."