> 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.
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?
I wonder how many people who were under the same impression can admit they were wrong, and of those, how many are able to tone down their outrage to the level warranted by the communication issue.
Outrage is really hard to dial back, even in the face of new information - I know it is for me. I guess that's an interesting corollary for many of the events we see happening in these polarised times.
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.
Thanks for another example, and the specifics of this one.
From what you've said it doesn't sound like anyone at Mozilla (specifically the Chief Marketing Officer representing the company) apologized for doing anything wrong. "letting down" comes closest for sure and may be enough for most.
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.
This has become an standard PR stunt. I agree with you that journalists should point that out.
Also, why public figures could not apologize for real? Like "I am sorry, this was not a great communication campaign after all. We'll do better next time." Is this really difficult?
Probably because he's not really sorry. It's not like he did anything horrible here. This is a Public Relations problem, not a moral problem, so you get a Public Relations apology.
Why is the quality of apology such a concern these days? Obviously they're apologizing for PR reasons, as should be expected. You're just creating an environment where people learn to be better liars.
Why is integrity such a concern these days? Obviously they're pretending to have integrity for PR reasons, as should be expected. You're just creating an environment where people learn to fake integrity.
Personally I find apologies of any kind from companies worthless. I don't get why people are so bent on squeezing apologies out of everything they can. It's a power thing most likely.
I prefer actions and we should incentivize the right actions from companies. Apologies are worthless, what people actually believe is worthless. Behavior is the only thing that matters.
>Why is integrity such a concern these days?
It's phony integrity. Social media has turned the entire world into gabbing Sunday churchgoers where everyone has to pretend to think and act in acceptable ways otherwise they'll incur the wrath of church gossip.
It's definitely possible that people complaining about phony apologies are doing a power thing... Hmm, maybe they want to take away power from people who do bad things?
It would be nice if there was some kind of way to signal true remorse, like a way of speaking with our bodies, a "body language".
No one says the behavior doesn't matter - but without an expectation of social cost (apologies, and further criticism and reputation loss when the apology is tone deaf and insincere), why would anyone care about behaving well? Demanding apologies isn't worthless - it's a power thing.
The problem is that moral indignation is rarely about improving the state of things. Further, attempting to change the behavior of corporations through moral indignation is the least effective option. Getting CEOs to issue apologies or to be driven out of their companies is about power--the feeling that the mob gets when its crusade is victorious. But this is only loosely related to improving the state of the world.
People follow incentives, and this goes even moreso for amoral corporations. The most effective way to change the behavior of corporations is to create the right incentives such that its in their best interests to behave in ways that are in all of our best interests. Insisting on "true belief", which this obsession over genuine apologies seem to indicate is the goal, just isn't needed. The behavior will follow when the incentives are aligned. But this shows its less about behaviors and more about the feeling of righteousness people get from moral indignation.
I got my "law degree" from watching TV, so take this with a grain of salt, but when you apologize you are admitting fault, which could be legally binding if a lawsuit is brought upon you.
So if he were to apologize, Red Cross could then potentially sue over a down tick in donations due to the join campaign, etc.
Again, not a lawyer, have no real interest in law, but this has played out on TV shows a few times.
This could be partially true. CA, MA, and a few other states have laws protecting against this kind of liability, but it's still probably a best practice against major liability.
You’re not wrong, and even when it isn’t about admitting fault/responsibility outright, you don’t want your apology read out in court, or worse, the video of you apologizing played.
I am also not a lawyer, but for my sins all of my first-order relatives are.
Of course there is a rubbernecking feeling to it, but it's not all that different from the NYT sending Nachtwey ot someone of equal caliber to a devastation zone to bring viewers closer to the action.
I'm sure we'd be outraged if it happened with regard to the ongoing North Bay fires, but you know what, five years hence, this will be an ordinary way to bring the news to your environment.
People are "shocked" because they are not used to the medium. One day they will be and this reporting will be ordinary.
It's not the technology so much as the tone of the video that was off-putting, I think. The Times also did some 360 video of PR devastation and nobody was shocked.
It's not the tone - it's the fact that one uses a natural disaster for self-promotion while the other does it to inform the populace about the extent of damage.
How can using any new medium in such a context NOT be seen as self-promotion? It can't. But the benefits of the new medium also shouldn't be sidelined over the fear that folks like you might get outraged over a non-issue.
I feel like it'd help to avoid saying features of your product "are really cool" as you use it to present disaster footage. Also the upbeat cartoon avatars were probably not a good choice.
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.
> "earlier orders intended to monitor a particular Lavabit user’s metadata."
> "the documents indicate the bureau was still trying only to capture metadata on one user."
> "while the metadata stream would be captured by a device, the device does not download, does not store, no one looks at it, [and] at the back end of the filter, we get what we’re required to get under the order."
> "So there’s no agents looking through the 400,000 other bits of information, customers, whatever, [...] No one looks at that, no one stores it, no one has access to it."
So, they were still only looking for (and recording) metadata on one user...
