Mozilla is already revising its new Firefox terms to clarify how it handles user data
-
AI Summary:
Overview:
- Mozilla is updating its new Terms of Use for Firefox due to criticism over unclear language about user data.
- Original terms seemed to give Mozilla broad ownership of user data, causing concern.
- Updated terms emphasize limited scope of data interaction, stating Mozilla only needs rights necessary to operate Firefox.
- Mozilla acknowledges confusion and aims to clarify their intent to make Firefox work without owning user content.
- Company explains they don't make blanket claims of "never selling data" due to evolving legal definitions and obligations.
- Mozilla collects and shares some data with partners to keep Firefox commercially viable, but ensures data is anonymized or shared in aggregate.
Already uninstalled everywhere. Better luck next time, Mozilla.
-
AI Summary:
Overview:
- Mozilla is updating its new Terms of Use for Firefox due to criticism over unclear language about user data.
- Original terms seemed to give Mozilla broad ownership of user data, causing concern.
- Updated terms emphasize limited scope of data interaction, stating Mozilla only needs rights necessary to operate Firefox.
- Mozilla acknowledges confusion and aims to clarify their intent to make Firefox work without owning user content.
- Company explains they don't make blanket claims of "never selling data" due to evolving legal definitions and obligations.
- Mozilla collects and shares some data with partners to keep Firefox commercially viable, but ensures data is anonymized or shared in aggregate.
Mozilla collects and shares some data with partners to keep Firefox commercially viable
How hard is it to be specific? People are concerned about this, can they not tell us the exact data they share and with whom, or is doing so going to make people more concerned so they are avoiding telling us?
-
Yes, which means they don't want anything from them.
And yet they're using the application. Don't you want the applications that you use to work better? This is what telemetry enables, the ability to give feedback without jumping through 10 hoops, creating an account, responding to a survey, or whatever other method you're thinking of to give feedback.
The concept of informed consent continues to evade tech bros. It makes me wonder how many other areas of your life you apply this line of reasoning to.
-
I would definitely call that selling my data. The recipient can now add that to my profile as an interest.
The recipient doesn't get any identifying data about you, because the data that shows the link was clicked does not identify you as an individual, since it's passed through privacy-preserving protocols.
To further clarify the exact data available to any party:
- The ad marketplace only knows that someone, somewhere clicked the link.
- Mozilla knows that roughly x users have clicked sponsored links overall.
- The company you went to from that sponsored link knows that your IP/browser visited at X time, and you clicked through a sponsored link from the ad marketplace
There isn't much of a technical difference between this, and someone seeing an ad in-person where they type in a link, from a practical privacy perspective.
Their implementation is completely different from traditional profile/tracking-based methods of advertising.
-
Mozilla collects and shares some data with partners to keep Firefox commercially viable
How hard is it to be specific? People are concerned about this, can they not tell us the exact data they share and with whom, or is doing so going to make people more concerned so they are avoiding telling us?
They can’t be specific in the legal note because that would close their options and prevent them from auctioning off every month to the new highest bidder.
They certainly could keep a page of what they’re currently selling to whom, but even if it was innocuous (doubtful) that would again put them in the news every time they changed it.
Tried and true legal strategy: say nothing and hope the attention goes away
-
AI Summary:
Overview:
- Mozilla is updating its new Terms of Use for Firefox due to criticism over unclear language about user data.
- Original terms seemed to give Mozilla broad ownership of user data, causing concern.
- Updated terms emphasize limited scope of data interaction, stating Mozilla only needs rights necessary to operate Firefox.
- Mozilla acknowledges confusion and aims to clarify their intent to make Firefox work without owning user content.
- Company explains they don't make blanket claims of "never selling data" due to evolving legal definitions and obligations.
- Mozilla collects and shares some data with partners to keep Firefox commercially viable, but ensures data is anonymized or shared in aggregate.
Anyone have a decent Android alternative? Updated my phone last night and this morning got a notification that Firefox had full permissions for accessing my location data. I'd like to move away from Firefox before enshitification is in full swing.
-
Anyone have a decent Android alternative? Updated my phone last night and this morning got a notification that Firefox had full permissions for accessing my location data. I'd like to move away from Firefox before enshitification is in full swing.
Try out Ironfox. It can be installed through F-Droid.
-
Try out Ironfox. It can be installed through F-Droid.
Dope, I'll give it a go
-
The concept of informed consent continues to evade tech bros. It makes me wonder how many other areas of your life you apply this line of reasoning to.
Do you actively consent to everything that happens around you? When you pick up an apple, do you consent to the pesticides used on them? Truth is, everyday of our lives we passively consent to a myriad of things to other people that know better than we do.
In this case no matter how many ways firefox is telling users that they have no reason to be worried, they keep clutching their pitchforks in the worry that firefox has suddenly turned into google (who btw have to abide by privacy laws just the same). There are no informed here, only pitchfork wielders.
-
Too late, I switched to Floorp.
Because of privacy stuff? No. Because of repeated drama? Yes.
I don't have time for this stuff. I don't have time to track every minute twist of the knife that Google's funding drives Mozilla to embark on.
I'm bored of using software and watching it go through "death by a thousand minor dramas"
So now I use a web browser that has a name so stupid I don't even recommend it to other people. Brilliant.
Try zen browser. It's just like floorp but has that Arc browser aesthetic.
I was a floorp user until I tried zen browser. You should give it a try too.
-
Anyone have a decent Android alternative? Updated my phone last night and this morning got a notification that Firefox had full permissions for accessing my location data. I'd like to move away from Firefox before enshitification is in full swing.
I switched to waterfox. Looks pretty much the same, no issues so far.
-
What do you think a browser does?
The browser manufacturer doesn't need a license to my inputs to process them and give them to the server it's supposed to give them to. If you type a text in Libre office, does it ask you for a license to the text in order to save it?
-
Certain features certainly could be considered as doing that, such as:
- Firefox sync
- crash reporting
- add-on store
I certainly want those. And then there are others that I don't want:
- telemetry
- studies
- AI
My understanding is that this change is primarily motivated by a recent/upcoming law change in California that has a pretty broad definition of "selling user data" and this is less likely to be a fundamental change in how Mozilla operates. However, let's see what they come back with.
That second list should also include
- Ads
Because ads in the search bar results are one of the things Mozilla cited as precipitating the need for ToS.
-
Louis Rossmann had a good video about this. Basically, California passed a law that changed what "selling your data" means, and it goes way beyond what I consider "selling your data." There's an argument here than Mozilla is largely just trying to comply with the law. Whether that's accurate remains to be seen though.
Then how about putting that in the language? "We don't sell your data, except if you're in California, because they consider x, y and z things we might actually do as selling data."
-
Boy have i got a treat for you,
Ironfox! the continuation of MullWill check it out, thanks.
-
Do you actively consent to everything that happens around you? When you pick up an apple, do you consent to the pesticides used on them? Truth is, everyday of our lives we passively consent to a myriad of things to other people that know better than we do.
In this case no matter how many ways firefox is telling users that they have no reason to be worried, they keep clutching their pitchforks in the worry that firefox has suddenly turned into google (who btw have to abide by privacy laws just the same). There are no informed here, only pitchfork wielders.
When you pick up an apple, do you consent to the pesticides used on them?
THAT'S the example you choose?
There are no informed here, only pitchfork wielders.
Absolutely stunning. You actually unironically do not understand what consent is. You need to take an ethics class.
I'll give you the really basic version:
#1: People are allowed to say no to you for any reason or no reason at all. It doesn't matter if you think their reasons are invalid or misinformed. No means no.
#2: A lack of a "no" does not mean "yes". If a person cannot say "no" to what you are doing because they have no idea you're doing it in the first place then that, in some ways, is even worse than disregarding a "no". At least in that case they know something has been done to them.
That, by the way, is what the "informed" in "informed consent" means. It doesn't mean "a person needs to know what they're talking about in order for their 'no' to be valid", like you seem to think it means.
Doctors used to routinely retain tissue samples for experimentation without informing their patients they were doing this. The reasoning went that this didn't harm the patient at all, the origin of the tissue was anonymized, the patient wouldn't understand why they wanted tissue samples anyway, and it might save lives. That's a much better justification than trying to develop a web browser, and yet today that practice is widely considered to be deplorable, almost akin to rape.
-
AI Summary:
Overview:
- Mozilla is updating its new Terms of Use for Firefox due to criticism over unclear language about user data.
- Original terms seemed to give Mozilla broad ownership of user data, causing concern.
- Updated terms emphasize limited scope of data interaction, stating Mozilla only needs rights necessary to operate Firefox.
- Mozilla acknowledges confusion and aims to clarify their intent to make Firefox work without owning user content.
- Company explains they don't make blanket claims of "never selling data" due to evolving legal definitions and obligations.
- Mozilla collects and shares some data with partners to keep Firefox commercially viable, but ensures data is anonymized or shared in aggregate.
Too late. That wasn't a typo, Terms are going downhill from here. I'm gone.
-
AI Summary:
Overview:
- Mozilla is updating its new Terms of Use for Firefox due to criticism over unclear language about user data.
- Original terms seemed to give Mozilla broad ownership of user data, causing concern.
- Updated terms emphasize limited scope of data interaction, stating Mozilla only needs rights necessary to operate Firefox.
- Mozilla acknowledges confusion and aims to clarify their intent to make Firefox work without owning user content.
- Company explains they don't make blanket claims of "never selling data" due to evolving legal definitions and obligations.
- Mozilla collects and shares some data with partners to keep Firefox commercially viable, but ensures data is anonymized or shared in aggregate.
Already uninstalled, I went with duckduckgo
-
AI Summary:
Overview:
- Mozilla is updating its new Terms of Use for Firefox due to criticism over unclear language about user data.
- Original terms seemed to give Mozilla broad ownership of user data, causing concern.
- Updated terms emphasize limited scope of data interaction, stating Mozilla only needs rights necessary to operate Firefox.
- Mozilla acknowledges confusion and aims to clarify their intent to make Firefox work without owning user content.
- Company explains they don't make blanket claims of "never selling data" due to evolving legal definitions and obligations.
- Mozilla collects and shares some data with partners to keep Firefox commercially viable, but ensures data is anonymized or shared in aggregate.
People hate whenever Brave is mentioned... But when it comes to privacy, I have not regretted my decision to use it
-
People hate whenever Brave is mentioned... But when it comes to privacy, I have not regretted my decision to use it
I mean if you are already ok with using a browser from a crypto ad company your standards are already set.
People who use Firefox are concerned that Forefox is slowly shifting into what Brave is now. Aka an ad company.
