> whether it’s through phishing emails or data breaches
A VPN won't protect you from those, at all.
> The Firefox Private Network proxy server is provided by our partner Cloudflare. Their strong privacy controls limit what data they collect and how long they keep it. [...] The data Cloudflare processes for the Firefox Private Network is subject to Mozilla’s Privacy Policy and is not covered by the Cloudflare Privacy Policy.
So where is Mozilla's privacy policy that Cloudflare's policy says applies here? Mozilla has an older VPN service with a privacy policy, but I cannot locate this one.
> You may often find yourself taking advantage of the free WiFi at the doctor’s office, airport or a cafe.
Which is why DNS over HTTPS ("DoH") should be the default but isn't. Combine that with DNS-Sec/Encrypted SNI DoH bootstrap (or better, don't bootstrap and provide a IP for the DoH endpoint). Then send most traffic via HTTPS and this is a solved problem, without giving an additional third party/parties access to your internet traffic.
This is likely the "least objectionable" VPN I've seen. But ultimately Firefox, if correctly configured, is already a secure browser even over unsecured WiFi, they just haven't taken the steps to make it secure by default.
And, yes, they could absolutely do both (secure out-of-box experience AND VPN product). I am simply pointing out they could solve this for all of their customers for almost free, Vs. this potentially paid offering.
>> whether it’s through phishing emails or data breaches
>A VPN won't protect you from those, at all.
They aren't claiming that when you don't take it out of context:
>There are many ways that your personal information and data are exposed: online threats are everywhere, whether it’s through phishing emails or data breaches. You may often find yourself taking advantage of the free WiFi at the doctor’s office, airport or a cafe. There can be dozens of people using the same network — casually checking the web and getting social media updates. This leaves your personal information vulnerable to those who may be lurking, waiting to take advantage of this situation to gain access to your personal info.
They are trying to claim that public wifi is another threat alongside phishing and data breaches, not that this product protects you from the latter two.
So they said something irrelevant to the context. But when I point it out, I am "taking it out of context." The problem I was raising was that it was irrelevant to the context and you don't even seem to disagree with that assertion.
I disagree that it's irrelevant to the context. They're drawing a comparison between threats the reader might know about and one the reader might not know about.
It isn't a comparison though, it is conflating things this can help with and things it cannot. For it to be a comparison it would have to contrast them, but it never does.
>> whether it’s through phishing emails or data breaches
>A VPN won't protect you from those, at all.
There has been a ton of misinformation about VPNs, spread in particular by commercial VPN marketing teams. They've been paying people like prominent youtube content creators to say outlandish shit like "without a VPN, you can't securely check your gmail on wifi." Due to the nature of their advertising with content creators, it's hard to determine if the exaggerations and falsehoods are coming from the companies themselves or if they're coming from over-enthusiastic content creators who earnestly don't understand the matter themselves, but in either case I consider the companies responsible since they approve of the misleading messaging.
I suspect that the commercial VPN messaging has modified/manipulated the general public's understanding of the matter so thoroughly, that the Mozilla employees who wrote/approved that text were themselves mislead by those commercials and unwittingly perpetuated the falsehoods.
That's what I quoted. That's the exact article that points to Mozilla's (seemingly non-existent?) privacy policy:
> The data Cloudflare processes for the Firefox Private Network is subject to Mozilla’s Privacy Policy and is not covered by the Cloudflare Privacy Policy.
> This is likely the "least objectionable" VPN I've seen.
This "VPN" (which at least isn't explicitly called a VPN by Mozilla or Cloudflare) apparently shares the ISP-assigned IP addresses of users with Cloudflare-using websites.
How does that make it "least objectionable"? Because it doesn't obscure users' IP addresses?
A VPN won't protect you from those, at all.
> The Firefox Private Network proxy server is provided by our partner Cloudflare. Their strong privacy controls limit what data they collect and how long they keep it. [...] The data Cloudflare processes for the Firefox Private Network is subject to Mozilla’s Privacy Policy and is not covered by the Cloudflare Privacy Policy.
So where is Mozilla's privacy policy that Cloudflare's policy says applies here? Mozilla has an older VPN service with a privacy policy, but I cannot locate this one.
> You may often find yourself taking advantage of the free WiFi at the doctor’s office, airport or a cafe.
Which is why DNS over HTTPS ("DoH") should be the default but isn't. Combine that with DNS-Sec/Encrypted SNI DoH bootstrap (or better, don't bootstrap and provide a IP for the DoH endpoint). Then send most traffic via HTTPS and this is a solved problem, without giving an additional third party/parties access to your internet traffic.
This is likely the "least objectionable" VPN I've seen. But ultimately Firefox, if correctly configured, is already a secure browser even over unsecured WiFi, they just haven't taken the steps to make it secure by default.
And, yes, they could absolutely do both (secure out-of-box experience AND VPN product). I am simply pointing out they could solve this for all of their customers for almost free, Vs. this potentially paid offering.