Google and firefox relationship

Nimble Launches Relationship Intelligence for Safari, Firefox, HootSuite & Chrome

google and firefox relationship

Mozilla Firefox (or simply Firefox) is a free and open-source web browser developed by The . Firefox downloads and enables the Adobe Primetime and Google Widevine CDMs by default to give .. Included were new icon designs by silverorange, a group of web developers with a long-standing relationship with Mozilla. Until you can show me that Google and Firefox have done PS: There is no comparison betweent he MS/IE relationship and Google/FireFox. Since , Google has been paying Mozilla a ton of money each year— estimated at around $ million—for the privilege of being the.

Firefox has passed the Acid2 standards-compliance test since version 3. For security and privacy reasons[ which?

Is The Google/Firefox Relationship A Conflict Of Interest? | Techdirt

CDM runs within a " sandbox " environment to limit its access to the system, and provide it a randomized device ID to prevent services from uniquely identifying the device for tracking purposes. The DRM module, once it has been downloaded, is enabled and disabled in the same manner as other plug-ins. Browser security Firefox allowed for a sandbox security model to manage privileges accorded to JavaScript code, but that feature has since been deprecated. In comparison, exploit code for known, critical security vulnerabilities in Firefox was available for nine days before Mozilla issued a patch to remedy the problem.

It is not relational at all," she said. In Februaryplans were announced for Firefox 22 to disable third-party cookies by default. However, the introduction of the feature was then delayed so Mozilla developers could "collect and analyze data on the effect of blocking some third-party cookies. Additionally, JavaScript could also no longer be disabled through Firefox's preferences, and JavaScript was automatically re-enabled for users who upgraded to 23 or higher with it disabled.

If Microsoft controlled 90 percent of the browser market, and it could "accidentally" break Google's Web sites with a software update, the search giant would be in serious trouble. Dear Mozilla - remember your priorities.

google and firefox relationship

The close relationship between Google and Mozilla leads to a number of serious conflicts of interest. The end result is that users' online privacy and security take a backseat to the protection of Google's revenue streams.

I will now explore two particularly chilling examples of this conflict of interest. It has been featured in The New York Timesand it is regularly included in various "top 10" lists of Firefox extensions on major blogs and other popular Web sites. For those of you who have not yet tried it out, AdBlock Plus and its essential sidekick, the Filterset G Updater completely revolutionizes the Web-browsing experience. After surfing without ads for the last few years, having to use a public computer without AdBlock Plus is a frustrating, distracting, and unpleasant experience.

While AdBlock Plus is fantastic at getting rid of most banner ads, it doesn't do the best job of targeting Google's text-based advertisements. This is where another immensely useful extension, CustomizeGooglecomes in handy.

In addition to blocking Google's text ads on all Web sites, including Google Web properties such as Gmail and Google Calendarthe extension also protects user privacy. With CustomizeGoogle installed, the search engine's tracking "cookies" are not accepted.

google and firefox relationship

This means that users cannot be tracked across multiple sessions. They can deny the search engine knowledge of which links a user clicks on from the results page of a search. Given the cavalier attitude that the company has to user privacy tracking users via cookies, unless the user leaves a two-year gap between visits to a Google Web propertyCustomizeGoogle is one of the few ways that users can take proactive steps to protect their own privacy online.

google and firefox relationship

This begs the question: While the terms of Google's contract with Mozilla are not public, even if Mozilla were contractually free to include anti-Google-tracking features, it would not be a wise move, business-wise.

After all, it is not too smart to anger the company that provides more than 85 percent of your financing. This is all conjecture, of course, but why else would the Firefox team not roll in the features of two extensions that are widely popular and that do so much to protect users from annoying advertisements and creepy privacy intrusions online?

It works something like this: A new phishing site is created and is e-mailed about to thousands of people. Someone tips off Google, which adds it to the phishing blacklist. Millions of Firefox browsers download the latest blacklist from Google.

google and firefox relationship

Users who click on e-mails, taking them to the phishing site, receive a clear warning from Firefox, telling them that the site is malicious. However, what happens when the phishing site is hosted by Google? Soghoian offers no evidence it was at Google's behest.

google and firefox relationship

But more to the point, even if it were Google's doing, I don't understand why that would be a bad thing. Google makes a profit by selling advertising and shares a significant share of those revenues with Mozilla, which Mozilla then spends on making Firefox better.

That sounds like a win-win-win proposition to us.

Nimble Launches Relationship Intelligence for Safari, Firefox, HootSuite & Chrome

Finally, given Google's excellent track record of making ads actually useful, relevant, and non-intrusive, it's not at all clear that users even want Firefox to block its ads. As long as Mozilla doesn't try to stop users from installing ad-blocking plugins themselves, I don't see the problem. Soghoian also objects to the fact that Google controls Firefox's phishing blacklist. At least one prominent security researcher claims that one of Google's sites has a serious security flaw that they've refused to fix, and they've also refused to add themselves to the Mozilla phishing blacklist.