Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 381 posts

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#11

Post by hedora »

alabastervlog wrote: post #5
move-on-by wrote: post #4

> The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because, in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or othe…

> in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.” JFC, it's funny they try to call this out as some kind of a "weird" definition when that's just... what selling is.

Usually, when I point out that Google sells your data and there’s no possible way to actually opt out, someone replies to say that’s not true, then defines “sell” in some way that most people would disagree with.

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#12

Post by 0manrho »

> in the way that most people think about “selling data”

I quite frankly am opposed to any entity selling my data, in any way, for any reason, without my explicit consent because it implies you were taking my data in the first place, which is the core issue. It's my data. Not yours. Taking it (eg, telemetry) is what I object to. You selling it, I further object to. Stop. Without exception. To both. Period. The how and why of it does not matter. Worried about the breadth of the law opening you up to liability? Then stop chasing enshittification for your own gain. Don't collect the data in the first place. Its that easy.

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#14

Post by Shank »

> It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox.

I really struggle to understand what legal team believes this language is necessary in downloaded software. There is a lot of precedent for this kind of language in online hosted services, but not downloaded software.

> This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.

Yes, it’s a license. Nothing changes. There is no ambiguity about ownership in a perpetual nonexclusive worldwide license, but this doesn’t explain why this license is suddenly necessary now and wasn’t before.

Clearly the legal team at Mozilla is struggling with multiple issues in this update. Why are these changes being made now, and what is driving them?

Others have discussed the data sale issue, but I don’t see a reasonable explanation for the license issue, and the changing text doesn’t inspire confidence.

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#15

Post by hiccuphippo »

0manrho wrote: post #12

> in the way that most people think about “selling data” I quite frankly am opposed to any entity selling my data, in any way, for any reason, without my explicit consent because it implies you were taking my data in the first place, which is the core issue. It's my data. Not yours. Taking it (eg, telemetry) is what I object to. You selling it, I further object to. Stop. Without exception. To both. Period. The how an…

Not to mention the little market share they have is from people who are actively trying to avoid bullshit like that.

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#16

Post by EMIRELADERO »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #7
plipt wrote: post #2

Is Google paying Mozilla to sabotage themselves? Stay in business, so monopoly arguments can be brushed aside. But slowly erode privacy on the internet. And slowly lose user base.

They just lost a monopoly case because they paid Mozilla all that money, this theory has always made little sense and sticking to it now makes even less.

In fact, one could argue that Google losing its case is what caused this. Google provided a substantial amount of revenue to Mozilla. With that now gone, new ways(TM) to get money are needed.

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#18

Post by tofof »

While this is confirming that Mozilla is already outright selling data, it at least DOES provide clarity on the issues around the acceptible use policy.

That language had been so broad that it forbade most use of the browser. For example, "send unsolicited communications" so no filing a bug report. "Deceive, mislead" so no playing Among Us. "Sell, purchase, or advertise illegal or controlled products or services" so no online refils of your antimigraine medication lasmiditan or your epilepsy medication (pregabalin) which are schedule V. "Collect or harvest personally identifiable information without permission. This includes, but is not limited to, account names and email addresses" so no browsing any forum where a username is displayed to you. And of course "access to content that includes graphic depictions of sexuality or violence" that rules out watching the nightly news, stream PG-13 and R movies, to watch classic Looney Tunes cartoons, to play Fortnight, and on and on.

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#19

Post by comex »

> Whenever we share data with our partners, we put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share is stripped of potentially identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).

But if the data was fully stripped of potentially identifying information, then it should not count as "personal information" under the California Consumer Privacy Act, therefore it should not trigger the "sale of personal information" requirement, regardless of how it's transmitted or what kind of compensation is involved.

The CCPA defines "personal information" as follows:

> “Personal information” means information that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household.

(It also includes a list of examples [1], but the examples are conditional on the same "linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household" requirement.)

So, which is it? Is the data deidentified or is it not?

Is Mozilla just trying to reduce risk in case someone argues their deidentification isn't good enough? If so, I'd call that a cowardly move.

[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#20

Post by KennyBlanken »

hysan wrote: post #10

This pretty much confirms that this is what everyone thought the change was about. So we get clarity, but no actual change in course from Mozilla. Good. We now know very clearly where Mozilla and Firefox stand on privacy.

Yup. This is almost a year exactly after they announced a "pivot" to "privacy."

At least the most useless, overpaid person in SV is finally gone and no longer collecting her $7M salary.

Not like money has ever been a problem at Mozilla - they're sitting on over $1.5B in assets, $500M or so in cash alone. That's despite a plunging market share...

Post reply on HN