• BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    Because “anonymized” data can never be reversed.

    I mean the bullshit from these people…

    • orcaA
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      The real solution is to never send that data at all. I don’t trust any company when they say they encrypt data, unless they have their approach reviewed by experts in the cryptographic field.

      Is it encrypted at rest or only in transit? What’s the encryption and the method? Where is the data stored?

      It’s like giving someone the keys to your house simply based on a promise they’ll never enter.

      Microsoft recently debuted their Recall feature and it was immediately found to have a major flaw in the security of the storage method for the files. These companies have proven they’re careless at every turn.

      • massacre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        There ya go. I don’t want to be opted in to sending ANYTHING to Mozilla, especially advertisement effectiveness detail. I’m certain that’s going to include non-anonymized data or it’s mostly useless, I can’t see what’s being sent, but it may not be secured. I get it, I’m not the majority, with ublock and a pi-hole there’s not much to even go on before I made the config change. I guess it’s about time to move away from core firefox branch… but that comes with it’s own concerns.

    • Holli25@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      By definition, anonymized data can not be reversed. However, many people do not know that difference. If the data would really be anonymized, it would be fine from a data protection point of view.