• Mozilla ends partnership with Onerep due to CEO’s ties to data broker
  • Onerep’s data removal service bundled into Mozilla’s Monitor Plus subscription
  • Onerep CEO admits to owning people-search websites, leading to end of partnership with Mozilla. Transition plan in progress.
  • jeffw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    456
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    This is what companies that actually care about privacy do. People over profits

    Edit: actually, I’m not quite that naive, there’s certainly a business motive here. Cut the dead weight before it drags you down. Still, a good move nonetheless

      • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        83
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I had a car with a bad alternator and took it to a shop, manager quoted me $150 then called an hour later to say he’d picked the wrong version of my car on the computer, mine would be $100 more but he said “a deals a deal so we’ll do it for the 150.”

        Every other car problem I had after, straight to that shop cause I knew they’d do solid work and charge me fairly. Putting people before profits means retaining workers and getting loyal customers

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          8 months ago

          It definitely makes sense to anyone with the ability to see past their nose. I wish companies like Comcast and Verizon could see it.

        • Plopp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          8 months ago

          Plot twist: The right version was actually cheaper, but they figured they’d tell you that story to make you a more loyal customer.

        • 0xD@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Where I live changing the price after agreeing on it would even be illegal :0

      • Squizzy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        How did you get to this conclusion? Tesla, amazon, McDs etc are top tier companies who are notoriously shit both to work for and in how they operate in terms of skirting regulation etc.

          • Squizzy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Profits are the goal though, look at the car industry, they have reduced production numbers to increase profits with higher margins.

            They dont care about customers, only profits and investors.

            • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              The point is that if they get complacent, they get replaced (example: what tesla and new Chinese companies like BYD are doing with the car market)

    • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      8 months ago

      its a good long term business move. And mozilla is a nonprofit, not beholden to the whims of shareholders, so they can do long term moves in peace.

      • jeffw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        8 months ago

        Nonprofits can’t lose money. They still got bills and are motivated by revenue. I say this as someone who has worked in non-profits for most of my adult life

        • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          8 months ago

          Am I wrong in saying the lack of shareholders makes it easier for non profits to make long term profitable business decisions, compared to companies with shareholders, who seem to often care about short term revenue above anything else?

          • jeffw@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            For-profits don’t all have shareholders. Non-profits still have boards (and with non-profits it’s at times more difficult to rid your company of toxic board members). I’ve seen non-profits that move like snails and for-profits that move like cheetahs.

            And I wouldn’t really say it’s easier, no. For two companies of the same size, I don’t think it would be any different just because you’re a public company. Plenty of them don’t mind posting a loss if they defend it with investments. Investors, especially institutional ones, don’t just look at revenue. Assets, liabilities, equity, it all frames investing decisions.

    • solrize@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s sorta the other way. Mozilla constantly does stuff like that and backs off when they get called out on it.

    • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      This one is cool but I’m still going with Librewolf, thanks.

  • Dojan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    131
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is fantastic. That said, Mozilla should really reconsider their own CEO too.

    • Manalith@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      8 months ago

      Are you referring to the foundation president Mark Surman or the corporation CEO Laura Chambers? She seems to be an interim position holder, so I guess whatcha referring to?

      • Dojan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        8 months ago

        Laura. Her past affiliations are concerning. I’m aware she’s seated on an interim position, but I can’t imagine that there weren’t any better candidates.

        • ripcord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Ok, that’s why she’s interim and they’re looking for someone else.

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Not everything in her past is stuff I like, am interested in, or agree with, but I don’t see anything in her history that means she can’t be a CEO or that her appointment should concern me.

          What has she done that makes you worry?

          • Dojan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            It’s not her actions, it’s her past workplaces. AirBnB in particular is concerning. It’s not exactly a secret that thanks to AirBnBs business model, and the lack of regulation of it, that the housing markets in several countries have gotten fucked completely. Something she chose to work with and directly support.

            I somehow rank the right to have a place to live slightly above the right to have open access to the internet (though not by much), and as such I wouldn’t want anyone with her affiliations in any such senior position at Mozilla, temporary or no.

      • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        28
        ·
        8 months ago

        Pretty sure he’s saying there should be no ultimate head. Which…umm…if you get rid of CEO then someone below them is in charge and then you just keep cutting people until nobody is left lol

        • Dojan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          8 months ago

          That’s not at all what I said. You’re conflating my comment with that of someone else.

        • Manalith@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems like for the most part, at least for big decisions, the corporation answers to the foundation which is more of a commitee anyway. Maybe they’re kept more separate than that, but that’s the impression that I got.

    • Noxy@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      38
      ·
      8 months ago

      They should not have a CEO, period. Useless do-nothing job.

      • SaltySalamander@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s always funny to see someone who thinks they know how it works but in reality has no clue whatsoever how it works.

  • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    ·
    8 months ago

    If only politicians were held up to the same standards when it came to being in positions of conflict of interest.

    • Kalysta@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      We’d have to abolish everyone currently in office and start over.

      Which would be beautiful.

  • Wes_Dev@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    People. This is talking about the CEO for Onerep, not the CEO for Mozilla.

  • thehatfox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’ve always been doubtful about these privacy “protection” services. Giving a bunch of personal data and money to a commercial entity making seemingly dubious claims it can compel other services to remove your data has never seemed like a great idea. Data is the new oil, it’s incredibly valuable, and there is too much incentive for companies like that to become just another data collector.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      The “incentive” is just greed. Customers could be paying a million dollars a month and there will still be some greedy, slimey executive pushing “if we sold their data too we could make a million and one dollars off them each month”.

    • cley_faye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      They initied the relationship like a month ago without any safety check. Is that also a good reason?

    • FatCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      8 months ago

      When questionable decisions are seen as a virtue because they are reversed.

      • ChowJeeBai@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        8 months ago

        Dunno about you, but recognizing a mistake and taking action to correct it is usually a sign of maturity in my book.

  • lowleveldata@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I kind of feel like the only job of CEOs is to not intentionally fuck shits up. But they often seems to fail at that somehow.

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      If you do a good job as CEO we’ll pay you $1 million

      If you mess up as CEO we’ll pay you $900,000

      If you really mess up as CEO we’ll pay you $800,000

      If you completely tank the company … we’ll pay you $2 million

    • Wes_Dev@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      8 months ago

      The headline is ambiguous here. The CEO in question is from Onerep, not Mozilla.

      • Pantherina@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        And that is not related to the comment. If this partner is gone, Firefox lost a big deal.

        • Wes_Dev@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Context. People seemed to be complaining about Mozilla’s CEO. That’s why I wanted to clarify for anyone reading the comments first.

    • antidote101@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      This CEO has been a problem from day one, and there needs to be a movement to get rid of them.

  • laverabe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    very deceptive title from the source author. OP please insert [, the privacy partner, Onerep’s ] in place of “its” to make it clear Mozilla didn’t do anything wrong here.

    Mozilla could do something wrong, but I entirely read this as Mozilla’s CEO had ties to data brokers and ditched Mozilla’s privacy partner because of that.

  • squid_slime@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I’m not entirely sure I get this, so a company that will and does force other company’s to remove personal data has ties to a broker and Mozilla dropped them for those ties, I mean its not bad but its definitely harsh and removes a useful service from a subscription they offered, hopefully Mozilla can at least find a new implementation or change the pricing to shadow the lack of this feature.

    Edit: different article Mozilla did the right thing. I still think Mozilla should adjust pricing or implement a similar service.

    • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      8 months ago

      Personally, these services are all a bit sketchy anyway. Mostly because they advertise themselves as the magic bullet to remove all your unwanted personal data from the internet, but ignores that this removal relies on the cooperation of the third parties in possession of your data. Most notably, this won’t work if your data has been exposed in a data breach.

      To me it very much feels like VPN ads. Technically a working product, but advertised in a very dishonest way.

      • squid_slime@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        i agree, its more that if the vpn advertised a roster of features and removed one id still like to see the pricing reflect that reduction.

      • brsrklf@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        VPN use should warrant the same privacy concerns. They can tell they respect your privacy all they want, nobody can control that.

        And they’ve got a huge incentive to sellling your data.

  • underwire212@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    Is there any service like onerep that is reputable and folks could recommend? Luckily I didn’t use onerep, but would like a similar service to explore.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    “Though customer data was never at risk, the outside financial interests and activities of Onerep’s CEO do not align with our values,” writes Mozilla’s vice president of communications Brandon Borrman, in a statement provided to The Verge.

    The service let users hunt down their personal information on the web and submit takedown requests across dozens of websites — all through Mozilla’s partnership with Onerep.

    However, an in-depth report from Krebs on Security found that Onerep’s CEO Dimitri Shelest started “dozens” of people-search websites over the course of several years.

    Shelest later published a statement admitting that he still holds an ownership stake in Nuwber, which lets visitors search for people based on their name, phone number, address, or email.

    “In truth, if I hadn’t taken that initial path with a deep dive into how people search sites work, Onerep wouldn’t have the best tech and team in the space.

    “We’re working now to solidify a transition plan that will provide customers with a seamless experience and will continue to put their interests first,” Borrman tells The Verge.


    The original article contains 308 words, the summary contains 177 words. Saved 43%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • FlavoredButtHair@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    I wouldn’t say Mozilla is bad when it comes to privacy. All these companies will say things make you think your privacy comes first. Mozilla might advertise that and work towards that.

    But they’re also gonna do what’s best for their wallets first. Just like politicians, they’re gonna say what you wanna hear in hopes to get your vote. But they’ll always do what’s best for the wallet first before helping you.

    I trust Firefox way more than Chrome or other browsers. But I’ll always use 2FA burner cards and sd blockers to try block bullshit.