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

141–150 of 381 posts

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

#141

Post by mmooss »

ranger_danger wrote: post #27
comex wrote: post #19

> 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 P…

How about don't send ANYONE's personal information, anonymized or not, to anyone including themselves? I think that's what people want. But that will never happen because you can't make money from it.

How will Sync or their VPN operate, for example?

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

#142

Post by Panzer04 »

Seems a bit weasle-y. How hard is it to be straightforward?

I don't mind Firefox doing what it needs to to fund itself. I do mind when it seems like they try to hide what specifically that is. Saying that some places define "sell" as more broad than what you think of is a total cop-out.

Just put up a page that describes every single thing that is taken from the browser for revenue purposes. Maybe it's reasonable, maybe it's not, but it seems like everyone is defaulting to unreasonabl, so..

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

#144

Post by jimjimwii »

Panzer04 wrote: post #138
brtv wrote: post #130

> It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. Do I understand it correctly that they can now use everything I read or type in the browser as they please, including for AI training? Considering that I do most of my work in webbased enail, issue tracker and other internal tools, this sounds like a direct violation of my…

Presumably they mean that if you want to post a comment to hacker news you give them the right to do what you want them to do. I'm presuming there's no catchy legal gotcha around the "doing as you request" clause.

That's nice and all, but most people are worried about the other "rights" this would grant them and their partners. (What they can vs what they say they will)

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

#145

Post by mmooss »

brtv wrote: post #130

> It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. Do I understand it correctly that they can now use everything I read or type in the browser as they please, including for AI training? Considering that I do most of my work in webbased enail, issue tracker and other internal tools, this sounds like a direct violation of my…

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

> Do I understand it correctly that they can now use everything I read or type in the browser as they please, including for AI training?

Have you requested that?

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

#146

Post by mmooss »

koolala wrote: post #50

How do you turn off getting your search history sold? You can turn off seeing the suggestions. Can you request they don't sell it though? The company they sell your search profile to could then sell that to someone else.

Where does it say your search history could be sold? They say they will use your data only to do things you request - probably you aren't requesting that.

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

#147

Post by jimjimwii »

iso8859-1 wrote: post #132

Does this new TOS also apply to Firefox as distributed in Linux distributions? Will Debian's default browser get switched out for LibreWolf? https://wiki.debian.org/DefaultWebBrowser

I assume not since i never agreed to such a terms and only learned about them yesterday. How on earth did we get to a point of hidden privacy policies on desktop open source software...

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

#148

Post by ho_schi »

chinathrow wrote: post #97
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…

Mozilla, then Phoenix, then Firefox user for over 27y or so. If they can't stop abusing their users, I will look for another browser, goddamnit.

They are only three viable web-engines left over from the second browser-war:

  * Blink (Google): Used in everything, from Chrome, Edge, Opera, Qt-Toolkit, Electron.
  * Gecko (Mozilla): Firefox. And Waterfox? I assume Gecko is still hard to integrate.
  * WebKit and WebKitGtk (Apple and Gtk): Safari, Epiphany and Gtk-Toolkit. Easy to integrate. And the only engine where I’m aware that actually two side actively cooperate in development.
Epiphany is small and nice, but they need a lot more developers. And I think they should use ffmpeg, gstreamer seems to be a source of issues for many years. But again, they need us, every helper capable of C++ is welcome.

Ladybird an another new engine, implemented in C++. But it is in alpha-state, only for developers. Everyone else who tries to show us a new browser means “use that Google thing with another name on it”.

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

#150

Post by mmooss »

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…

> According to CA and other states Mozilla is collecting and selling your data.

The definition requires Mozilla to do it "in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”". What consideration is Mozilla receiving and from who?

Post reply on HN