Firefox deletes promise to never sell personal data, asks users not to panic
-
just uninstall firefox
Yep, I have Chrome and its a better browser anyways /s
-
Firefox maker Mozilla deleted a promise to never sell its users' personal data and is trying to assure worried users that its approach to privacy hasn't fundamentally changed. Until recently, a Firefox FAQ promised that the browser maker never has and never will sell its users' personal data. An archived version from January 30 says:
Does Firefox sell your personal data?
Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That's a promise.
That promise is removed from the current version. There's also a notable change in a data privacy FAQ that used to say, "Mozilla doesn't sell data about you, and we don't buy data about you."
The data privacy FAQ now explains that Mozilla is no longer making blanket promises about not selling data because some legal jurisdictions define "sale" in a very broad way:
Mozilla doesn't sell data about you (in the way that most people think about "selling data"), and we don't buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of "sale of data" is extremely broad in some places, we've had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).
Mozilla didn't say which legal jurisdictions have these broad definitions.
I mean you could argue that them defaulting to Google search is already them selling your data. Google definitely pay them for that.
-
This is why I am an advocate for publicly-funded Internet, like how people fund NPR and BBC.
I don't blame Firefox because at the end of the day, they are still a business and need to cover the operating cost. I blame the system that we're in and the elites will tell you there is no other alternative.
What operating costs? You could argue there are development costs, but development is driven by the community. The only operating costs are forced stalking behavior.
-
Mozilla needs to understand that I don't want it to have my data to sell or not in the first place.
Just uncheck all telemetry and never use an account. Its open source so it should be verifiable that data collection is turned off.
-
Aaaand that's why I switched to Brave. If you have shit performance and are selling my data, what's the redeeming quality? 8gb of RAM should be enough to browse the internet. IDK why Firefox insists it isn't....
If this is not a parody, I implore you to at least…read the Wikipedia page?
-
McKinsey, you forgot that, whatever the fuck it is
I’ve been “laid off” by a McKinsey sweep twice in my Silicon Valley career and both times the stated reason was basically for making working software instead of lying and scamming.
-
Like they could also make a FOSS alternative to VS-Code but nah
Vs codium is a FOSS vs-code
-
I'm about to get my tattoo removed wtf
You’re a good friend
-
Firefox maker Mozilla deleted a promise to never sell its users' personal data and is trying to assure worried users that its approach to privacy hasn't fundamentally changed. Until recently, a Firefox FAQ promised that the browser maker never has and never will sell its users' personal data. An archived version from January 30 says:
Does Firefox sell your personal data?
Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That's a promise.
That promise is removed from the current version. There's also a notable change in a data privacy FAQ that used to say, "Mozilla doesn't sell data about you, and we don't buy data about you."
The data privacy FAQ now explains that Mozilla is no longer making blanket promises about not selling data because some legal jurisdictions define "sale" in a very broad way:
Mozilla doesn't sell data about you (in the way that most people think about "selling data"), and we don't buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of "sale of data" is extremely broad in some places, we've had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).
Mozilla didn't say which legal jurisdictions have these broad definitions.
Which jurisdictions? What kind of broad way? Give one example please. I dare you.
-
Get in loser, we’re going to librewolf apparently. Fuck me I’ve reached the age of seeing all the things I like die. I don’t even remember a time I didn’t use Firefox. God damn it
Icecat's good too.
-
This kind of thinking shouldn't be acceptable from a legal standpoint. Yet the courts do nothing...
In the US at least, the courts are seemingly bought out.
-
Interesting. How's water fox?
Switched yesterday, feeling right at home so far.
-
I’ve been “laid off” by a McKinsey sweep twice in my Silicon Valley career and both times the stated reason was basically for making working software instead of lying and scamming.
sorry i did try to pretend McKinsey doesn't exist. First I heard of them was pete butigieg.
Look, being gay and married is the most pro family values position conceivable
-
What operating costs? You could argue there are development costs, but development is driven by the community. The only operating costs are forced stalking behavior.
I can't remember the details, but if I remember correctly, Firefox used to get a lot of cut from hosting Google's ad. But Google cut that deal and Firefox lost 90% of its revenue as a result. That's why I can't blame Firefox for doing what they are doing at the moment.
Us users want services for free but we can't have our cake and eat them in the current paradigm of the internet. That's why we have to think outside the box and I advocate for a publicly funded internet. It is the same model as NPR and BBC and that is why they have little to no ads unlike private broadcasters. The same principle should be applied to the Internet if we want to keep using it for free.
-
They said browser.
browser is ??? you want that g chrome reaching down your throat?
-
Yep, I have Chrome and its a better browser anyways /s
chrome is a better browser because it's compliant
-
Gahhhh this is horrible
I spent some time switching to Librewolf this morning but at the end of the day, it having Firefox as the upstream means it’s all fragile and tenuous anyway
I installed Librewolf despite being a furry that loves foxes and it legit fixed every Firefox issue I had. But they were all local issues.
-
Aaaand that's why I switched to Brave. If you have shit performance and are selling my data, what's the redeeming quality? 8gb of RAM should be enough to browse the internet. IDK why Firefox insists it isn't....
Brave did have some bad habits (and i think still has) so personally i would not trust them with my data. You could look for a firefox based browser like Zen (the most beautyful of them all) or stick to any other privacy first chromium based like vivaldi or mullvad.
The general rule: the less features, the more privacy
And if features are needed there are addons -
Nowadays that’s incorrect if you’re in the European Union.
If only hahaha
-
What's the next Android browser I'm installing fam?
