Mozilla is already revising its new Firefox terms to clarify how it handles user data
-
Dope, I'll give it a go
-
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.
-
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.
-
I switched to waterfox. Looks pretty much the same, no issues so far.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
Already uninstalled, I went with duckduckgo
-
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.
-
Did you give it to it?
It can be a pretty nice feature for using map-based apps in the browser.
I haven't used such websites for a while and I don't see Firefox in the recent users of the location API, even though I use Firefox Android all the time. (Info available in Android under Settings/Location.)
-
Is that a pocket thing? Because I disable pocket and changed the default search engine.
If they laid out precisely which features result in data collection by Mozilla and how to disable them, I'd be pretty happy with it. However, if they're unilaterally collecting data and not really separating concerns, then I'll need to find something else.
-
Exactly!
Hetzner kind of does this, where there's a separate EULA for US customers that lays out precisely how they're screwing you in that jurisdiction (e.g. forced arbitration). I'm not happy about that, but I appreciate having a separate, region-specific TOS.
If some wording only applies in California, state that. Or if it's due to similar laws elsewhere, then state that. And then detail which features collect data, why, what control you have, and how you can opt-out. Maybe have a separate mini-TOS/EULA for each major component that gets into details.
But just saying "you give us a license to everything you do on Firefox" may appease their legal counsel, but it doesn't appease many of their users, especially since they largely appeal to people who care about privacy.
-
Absolutely not. There's not a single app on my phone that I willingly give unrestricted access to my location data. At most I allow "while using the app" and have my phone set to ask for permission for background running.
-
We saw it with reddit and that place is fucked now. Seems no one can be content with their status, they all need more.
-
Websites can ask the browser for location data, so the browser asks to be able to collect that data for sites that ask. Any web browser that wants to provide that function would need those permissions whether they are sending that data to their parent company or not.
But as you've done, you can just not give the browser that permission.
