2g67vupsoknn
Joined 11 years ago
Karma
96
Submissions
11
Member since
Jan 22
Recent submissions
Comment · 8 years ago
TFW you blew your entire CGI budget on a car commercial
Comment · 9 years ago
Thanks for the additional information.
In any case, the claim that "no user data was collected or shared" is suspect.
Users who enabled the extension and visited NBC Universal's site (and others) were sending extra HTTP header data to the server, data that identified them as a Firefox user, of a specific version, who had a particular extension installed -- that's how the "engagement" worked.
Do you think the server(s) that handled these types of "special" requests were configured to specifically _not_ log the incoming traffic or extra headers?
Do you think that NBC Universal would spend the resources to build an elaborate[1] ARG focused on digital "engagement" with fans, form a relationship with Mozilla to promote the show and ARG to Firefox users, but also specifically _not_ collect data about those users?
It seems unlikely.
[1] https://wiki.gamedetectives.net/index.php?title=Mr._Robot_AR...
Comment · 9 years ago
> Even when turned on no user data was collected or shared.
This is disingenuous at best.
The extension (when enabled) injects an extra HTTP header into your browser's requests to 3 specific sites[1], (at least) one of which appears to be operated by NBC Universal.
Are we really supposed to believe that _all_ of the servers handling these "special" requests were set up without any kind of logging enabled? That NBC Universal wasn't tracking how many times each page was loaded? And from which IP addresses? And when?
Mozilla needs to clarify what they meant by "user data" and "collected" here. Seems like they're trying to hide the fact that your data WAS collected -- by a 3rd party, which is perhaps worse.
Comment · 9 years ago
You might find this thread[1] of interest.
All you have to do is drop the word "sorry", it doesn't matter if the apology actually addressed any of the concerns that were raised.
FB was sorry for being "unclear". Mozilla is sorry for "the confusion" and for "letting down members of [the] community".
The headlines will read "[Company] apologizes for [event that triggered criticism]" and everyone will carry on as if the apology directly addressed that event. The lawyers and shareholders will breathe a sigh of relief, and the matter will soon be forgotten.
Comment · 9 years ago
Do you agree that TechCrunch's headline (and, by extension, HN's) is misrepresenting what the apology was actually for?
Regardless of if the criticism is justified, my point here is that there was no apology made for the planning/execution of the presentation itself -- just for the offense it caused to those who misunderstood the goals of the presenter.
It's one thing to believe an apology wasn't necessary. It's another thing to believe it's OK for "journalists" to massage this corporate non-apology into something more palatable.
Comment · 9 years ago
The headline seems a bit misleading... he didn't actually apologize for the cartoon, but for the fact that some were "offended" and misunderstood his stated goals for the presentation (showing off VR and the partnership with Red Cross).
In other words, a classic non-apology. The issue is that people did understand the true goal of the presentation: self-promotion.
Comment · 9 years ago
Sounds interesting, where can I find it?
Comment · 11 years ago
> the request was definitely not for blanket access to all users communications, which would be blatantly illegal.
Actually, this is exactly what was requested (and was eventually provided).
Comment · 11 years ago