The terms were just introduced on Wednesday.

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.
  • psyspoop@lemm.eeEnglish
    2·
    4 months ago

    Mozilla says that “there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners” so that Firefox can be “commercially viable,” but it adds that it spells those out in its privacy notice and works to strip data of potentially identifying information or share it in aggregate.

    Sounds like they’ve already been selling (or trading) data and this whole debacle is a way to retroactively cover their asses.

    • cley_faye@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      4 months ago

      Yeah. And their privacy notice is basically a mix-match of ten or so sections that have no place in a web browser privacy policy, that allows them to do the things people reproach them for doing.

      It’s like saying “we’re not doing that, because we’re limited by that document that allows us to do just that”. And now they’re tripling down on it.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      4 months ago

      “I am doing things that are not selling your data which some people consider to be selling your data”

      Why is he so cryptic? Neil, why don’t you tell me what those things are and let me be the judge?

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • Don_alForno@feddit.orgEnglish
          2·
          4 months ago

          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.”

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            0·
            4 months ago

            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.

            • monogram@feddit.nlEnglish
              1·
              4 months ago

              At this point I care about ownership of what I do on my browser, Chrome under these guidelines is a better alternative (and that’s a low bar)

                • monogram@feddit.nlEnglish
                  1·
                  4 months ago

                  It’s not it’s just slightly less bad than Firefox on the perspective of ownership,

                  E.g.: under the new guidelines by Mozilla you’re not allowed to bookmark pornhub

                  This is thanks to Mozilla’s focus on “privacy respecting “ advertisement and ai, go to any open source conference and you’ll see a list of ai talks by them.

                  ——

                  Don’t get me wrong I implore anyone to move to any browser that isn’t; Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Opera

        • mle@feddit.orgEnglish
          1·
          4 months ago

          I think this is a reasonable explanation.

          But I also believe a large part of the firefox user base does not want any data about them collected by their browser, no matter if it is for commercial purposes or simply analytics / telemetry. Which is why the original statement “we will never sell any of your data” was just good enough for them, and anything mozilla is now saying is basically not good enough, no matter how much they clarify it to mean “not selling in the colloquial sense”

          • verdigris@lemmy.mlEnglish
            0·
            4 months ago

            Which is a ridiculous thing to want for most users and exposes how little so much of the self-identified “techie” crowd actually understands about how this stuff works.

            • mle@feddit.orgEnglish
              0·
              4 months ago

              The first 6 years of Firefox were done without telemetry and after it was implemented it was opt-in for a while.

              While I see the use of telemetry for development purposes, I would not call it aridiculous thing to not want

              • verdigris@lemmy.mlEnglish
                1·
                4 months ago

                I more meant that the average user actually wants a significant amount of data collection and telemetry, as part of their normal web usage. There are some true privacy geeks who are actually maintaining near-anonymity on the modern internet, but there’s a lot of people who get riled up about things like this while using Android phones, or signing up for loyalty programs, using corporate social media, etc.

        • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          0·
          4 months ago

          I mean…if they pay for the service of external analization of data in exchange of money, how is that a sale of goods/data?

  • doctortofu@reddthat.comEnglish
    2·
    4 months ago

    That’s good and I’m genuinely glad they’re trying to clarify it, but it proves yet again that their top management is out of touch with reality and their users: somebody (most likely more than one person actually) had to sign off on these changes and the message they sent out - this whole thing could have been avoided if they understood their users better (and/or if they actually cared nore about what users think).

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      4 months ago

      Google funding allows them to be big and inefficient, which means a lot of tops paid well and thinking themselves fashionable FOSS leader people or something.

      They can live without it. They’ll have to cut most of the organization and return to being an open project developing a web browser.

      That doesn’t sound cool for people not doing useful work. Like me, I’ll get to my shit instead of typing comments.

  • Dave@lemmy.nzEnglish
    1·
    4 months ago

    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?

  • zecg@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    4 months ago

    I didn’t sell your shit, I collected it and shared it to keep myself comercially viable.

  • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.meEnglish
    1·
    4 months ago

    They have no business collecting any data in the first place. If I wanted my data collected I’d be using Chrome like everyone else. I’m not choosing to use their buggy ass inferior and slower browser for any of Mozilla’s services, I’m choosing it because I want to support non-Chromium browsers and regain my privacy.

    There’s no point whatsoever to using Firefox if it’s just a worse Chrome.

    • imecth@fedia.io
      0·
      4 months ago

      Telemetry benefits everyone, knowing which features are getting used, knowing what parts are causing crashes… It lets developers target what to improve and fix instead of going in blind. I get that collecting data can be scary, because so far everyone has been busy selling that data. But there’s a reason why data is so valuable, if it’s properly handled and anonymized it benefits everyone using firefox.

      • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        4 months ago

        No, fuck that and quit bootlicking. Software makers did just fine without telemetry for decades; your supposed justification is nothing but a bullshit lazy excuse.

        • imecth@fedia.io
          0·
          4 months ago

          Software makers did just fine without telemetry for decades

          They actually did not, almost every software out there is mining your information. Software developers rely on and need data, you can’t guess what people want. Whether it’s from studies, testers, surveys, or telemetry, developers need information about what users like, what they don’t, how they interact with the software… This is what makes data so valuable, and why businesses like Google can exist. Denying open source software telemetry is shooting yourself in the foot.

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            1·
            4 months ago

            . Software developers rely on and need data, you can’t guess what people want.

            Why would I want software developers (particularly web browser) to guess what I want? I will tell them what I want, otherwise they have no business serving it to me.

            If I’m not offering that data, it means I don’t want you to have it. Simple as that.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        1·
        4 months ago

        It lets developers target what to improve and fix instead of going in blind.

        I’m sure they’ll make do

    • skankhunt42@lemmy.caEnglish
      0·
      4 months ago

      I’ve already moved most of my stuff to forks or different software altogether.

      Firefox -> LibreWolf and Waterfox

      Thunderbird -> Evolution

      I’m still trying to decide if I want to move off k9mail on mobile to something else. I probably will but I’m not sure what at this point.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.worldBannedEnglish
    0·
    4 months ago

    Pornhub now remembers what sort of porn you like while browsing incognito. Is this also happening with other browsers? I just don’t wanna have my wife know what kid of bdsm I really like. It keeps things fun that way. Fun, gun, hun, nun, are all too close on the keyboard. Autocorrect can’t fix that.

  • kilonova@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    4 months ago

    What’s the alternative for Android? Fuck Chrome I want to move off this shit onto something that actually gives half a shit about me.

      • Don_alForno@feddit.orgEnglish
        0·
        4 months ago

        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?

        • verdigris@lemmy.mlEnglish
          1·
          4 months ago

          No, but that’s a local program processing and saving data entirely on your system. It’s a world of difference from what a web browser does, which is oversee a whole suite of protocols connecting you to remote servers and transmitting data back and forth in requests that build on and reference each other. With the complexity of modern web interactions, there’s a ton of reasons why a browser might need to store your data and share it with others, even ignoring profit-seeking motives.

          And let’s remember that the last thing Mozilla got heat for was the introduction of a method to anonymize bulk user data for sharing & selling purposes, as opposed to the granular, extremely invasive tracking that 99% of websites are doing these days.

          I see a company that needs to make a decent amount of money in a crazy competitive environment, that’s trying their best to do so in the way least destructive to user privacy and choice.

          • Don_alForno@feddit.orgEnglish
            11·
            4 months ago

            Not even the lemmy instance you’re on needs a license to your content, and it is stored there and displayed for the world to see. Why is that? Because storing and displaying your posts is the very thing you want it to do. That is the service it is providing for you, and you declare that you want it to do that by clicking “send”. They would need a license if they wanted to do anything else with your stuff, which doesn’t directly have to do with displaying your posts in the fediverse.

            The browser is supposed to take my requests and inputs, carry them to the server that I’m talking to and bring back the answer. The mail doesn’t need a license to my letters. That only changes if they want to open them and do something I originally had not intended.

            But you know who claims a license to your content? Meta. Because you’re the product there, not the costumer.

            And let’s remember that the last thing Mozilla got heat for was the introduction of a method to anonymize bulk user data for sharing & selling purposes, as opposed in addition to the granular, extremely invasive tracking that 99% of websites are doing these days.

            Ftfy. It’s never going to replace more invasive tracking and just constitutes yet another party collecting my data.

            I see a company that needs to make a decent amount of money

            Mozilla already makes enough money from passive investment income. They don’t need to make any money from Firefox at all (but they do, it’s from google). They also don’t need to pay their CEO 6 Million a year.

            Edit: Typo