Privacy

31803 readers

348 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

Chat rooms

[Matrix/Element]Dead
Discord

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

227

Mozilla Monitor is shady (lemmy.world)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Onerep is a privacy monitoring service/ privacy provider that Mozilla partnered with for their Mozilla Monitor service.

Yesterday, Brian Krebs (a cybersecurity journalist) dug into Onerep and found that the CEO is a shady Belarussian. Dimitri Shelest, CEO, of Onerep owns multiple “people searching” websites. Shelest has also been linked to aggressive spam and affiliate marketing emails.

Onerep’s reputation is shady due to their CEO’s multiple conflicts of interest. At worst, Onerep is sucking your personal information. At best, you’re paying for a service that doesn’t do anything. Either way, I would not trust Mozilla Monitor service .

This is a copy and paste from a post I made to [email protected]. I do not no know how to crosspost and I apologise for my mistake a head of time.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There's an interesting conversation to be had about that. Personally, due to its for-profit beginnings, I don't think Brave would have done a good job even if they had followed through on their promises. For example, cryptocurrency has its own issues, and there are ethical problems with replacing a website owner's chosen source of income with reliance on a different, proprietary one.

Mozilla would have to advance much further with Firefox and everything else before any of that is worthy of discussion, unfortunately.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 2 points 7 months ago

cryptocurrency has its own issues

I disagree, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. The goal is micro-payments to content creators in-lieu of advertisements and/or profit sharing for advertisements. That could use cryptocurrency, or it could use traditional bank transactions.

And yeah, I agree that there are ethical issues here, which is why Mozilla shouldn't put their own ads on a page w/o the content creator opting in. That's where Brave went wrong, and where I hope Mozilla could get it right.

I think they just need a few big names to agree to it. Mozilla should implement some kind of credit system (i.e. to fund Mozilla VPN and other paid offerings), and make a way to keep track of page views in an anonymous manner and pilot it with some big-name brands (e.g. New York Times or similar). Initially, it would just be micropayments per page view in exchange for no ads, but Mozilla could add their own ads using your local search history (never shared with Mozilla or the website) in-lieu of ads supplied by the vendor.

There is an ethical way to do it, but Brave isn't it and I don't trust Mozilla to do it properly.