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

151–160 of 381 posts

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

#151

Post by crowselect »

MartijnHols wrote: post #139
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…

By that definition, wouldn’t sharing total monthly users for the basic purpose of landing some kind of deal (could be as simple as a partnership), constitute “selling data”? Stats like X million monthly users doesn’t appear to conflict with the spirit of the claim, but does conflict with that legal wording.

What part of "we have x million monthly users" is "a consumer’s personal information"? That's information about how many consumers you have, but it's not personal

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

#152

Post by nabogh »

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…

I was under the impression that selling anonymised data would also fall under this category. Either way we need more transparency here.

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

#153

Post by leetnewb »

zamadatix wrote: post #87
NullPrefix wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>spend $15M on a team of 20+ highly competent full time developers Implies that the browser is the mission, not some social cause is the mission

It implies maintaining the browser would better fund the mission in the long run than selling user data to adtech now as the user count continues to decline. Google pays Apple 18 billion dollars per year to be the default search engine on Safari. If Firefox had managed to stay just as popular imagine how much more money they'd have been making on search deals these last 5 years and how much of that could have went to…

Firefox can't compete with iOS or Android for what should be obvious reasons - it is structurally impossible. Also, the competing browsers are way better today than in Firefox's heyday. There is very little reason to use Firefox today outside of ideological.

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

#154

Post by raverbashing »

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…

So by that definition, if I click on your profile info here, HN is "selling me your data" no?

But anyway, if anyone thinks FF or any other browser can survive without such commercial deals needs to get ready to use Safari or other minor browser

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

#155

Post by dns_snek »

Vegenoid wrote: post #137
cmcaleer wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla mentioned their viability in this statement, but one has to wonder how much more viable they’d be had they not wasted tens of millions of dollars on acquisitions such as this, Pocket, and of course their former CEO’s salary. I would happily donate to a company that focussed on just making Firefox and Thunderbird, but the reason why I don’t and probably will not donate to Mozilla ever again is that I have no i…

> it’s probably just easier to assume actual malice The easiest assumption to make is greed and foolishness.

Dishonesty in pursuit of greed equals malice.

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

#156

Post by wtallis »

raverbashing wrote: post #154
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…

So by that definition, if I click on your profile info here, HN is "selling me your data" no? But anyway, if anyone thinks FF or any other browser can survive without such commercial deals needs to get ready to use Safari or other minor browser

> So by that definition, if I click on your profile info here, HN is "selling me your data" no?

What monetary or other valuable consideration does HN get from you when HN serves up someone's profile page to you?

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

#158

Post by wtallis »

mmooss wrote: post #141
ranger_danger wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is about Mozilla's Terms of Use for Firefox, not Firefox Sync and Mozilla VPN. Those services need their own Terms of Use that doesn't apply to using Firefox without using those add-on services.

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

#159

Post by mmooss »

wtallis wrote: post #79
chrismorgan wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > In order to make Firefox commercially viable, there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar. And remember, they’re citing CCPA’s definition as meaning “… in exchange for ‘monetary’ or ‘other valuable considerations’”. This is exactly what people mean by “selling”. It’s…

Selling ads isn't even the problem. They could do that and still truthfully, legally claim they never sell your data. Mozilla is helping perpetuate the illusion that online advertising necessarily includes collecting and selling data about the users who are shown the ads.

AFAIK they do the opposite: They've pioneered ways to target advertising without your data leaving your computer.

See for example,

https://www.adexchanger.com/privacy/mozilla-acquires-anonym-...

"That shared mission is predicated on the notion that advertising and privacy are not – or at least don’t have to be – mutually exclusive."

And it goes into detail on the investment and technology in that area.

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

#160

Post by JumpCrisscross »

nickthegreek wrote: post #95
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why are you putting trust on them more than firefox? Literally this article. I care about my privacy more than open source. And I care about honesty above both. If open source can’t deliver, so be it.

Waterfox or Librewolf aren’t viable alternatives?

Not really. What does it provide that other browsers don’t? What must I give up? The open-source tax isn’t one I am willing to bear. That doesn’t mean it’s the case for everyone. But while it has value for me, it’s hot a hard limit.
Post reply on HN