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

221–230 of 381 posts

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

#221

Post by koolala »

mmooss wrote: post #174
rdtsc wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a funny case where Mozilla thought they are clarifying their position by pointing out how ridiculously CA defines "sales" only for it to blow up in their face. This is not the first time it happens to companies where in an act of desperation they issue some "apology" or explanation only to make the whole thing worse. Now people will read even more carefully their privacy policy https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/p…

Based on the parent, all the collected data preserves privacy: > Firefox also shows its own search suggestions based on information stored on your local device That data stays on your computer ... > Mozilla processes [...] how many searches you perform, how many sponsored suggestions you see and whether you interact with them. That description contains no user content: number of searches, number of ads, whether you i…

I wish this was more obvious that they don't identify what the 'clicked' New Tab content is. And for Search it could be stored local information and be tracked for suggestions. I wish they clarified the things you clarified instead of failing to mention them.

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

#222

Post by koolala »

xnx wrote: post #211
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…

Hasn't Mozilla gotten enough money that if they hadn't wasted it they could've been living solely off interest by now?

But then they would need to be given more money.

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

#223

Post by monkeyshelli »

Vegenoid wrote: post #143
sabareesh wrote: post #88

Hate to say it but seems Safari might be the alternative. Only missing piece is ublock origin

Unfortunately, I don't believe there are any adblockers on Safari that are very effective. I'd love to be proven wrong.

I moved from Wipr to this, have been pleasantly surprised.

https://github.com/0xCUB3/wBlock

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

#225

Post by fredzel »

saghm wrote: post #207
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…

They also said "Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data”)", and I'm struggling to fathom what they could possibly think that "most people" think selling data could mean other than "giving your data to someone else for compensation", which seems pretty much exactly what the California law says. Yes, it's embedded in some legalese, but surely Mozilla has lawyers?

Most people probably envision selling data akin to shady person trading usb stick in dark alley or hackers selling huge batches of stolen data, so that statement will be true almost by default

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

#226

Post by kehrin »

eps wrote: post #205
rtpg wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like there _is_ some daylight between what people hear when someone says "Firefox is selling your data" and, for example, Firefox using your IP address to put you in a rough country-level geoblock to determine whether to show you an ad that was sold to all users in a country. Yet the second one, which I think would be very much considered close to harmless from my perspective (compared to an alternative of "an…

> Firefox using your IP address ... to show you an ad Why do you imply that Firefox showing ads is acceptable ?

They have been doing for at least a decade by now (e.g Amazon). So why imply it suddenly isn’t acceptable to show ads (in any form)?

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

#227

Post by scottbez1 »

WhyNotHugo wrote: post #195
chinathrow wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Librewolf is a Firefox fork with this crap removed.

And if everyone switches to Librewolf, Librewolf will die because Mozilla will no longer make money and won't be able to devote resources towards maintaining upstream Firefox.

I use Firefox. I hate ads. I don't love that Mozilla engages in some level of affiliate deals to pay the bills, but it's the only viable alternative to Google controlling the entire web and doing much worse tracking/advertising at this point, unless Mozilla can figure out some other revenue stream.

Chromium-based "privacy-focused" browsers can only exist as long as they're not popular enough to move the needle on Google's ad business. Firefox derivatives can only exist as long as Mozilla can pay the bills, which they almost certainly can't do if nobody uses Firefox (no reason for Google to pay for search priority for an audience of zero, and no affiliate deals for an audience of zero).

The more people use Firefox forks, the sooner Google controls everything. You might personally benefit in the short term, with "complete" privacy, so I can understand why some might choose that option, but you need to accept that you're contributing to Google's dominance by doing so.

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

#228

Post by kevincox »

WhyNotHugo wrote: post #204
teshaq wrote: post #34

While I agree with folks that this is a step backwards in privacy, I think it’s a good exercise to zoom out and understand Firefox’s position. The browser market is highly competitive, and Mozilla’s competitors have orders of magnitude more resources at their disposal. As we all know Firefox’s market share has been dropping over the past years and unfortunately the revenue supporting all of Mozilla comes predominantl…

> The browser market is highly competitive And that's exactly the problem: treating it like a market. I don't want browsers to be a competitive market, in the same way that I don't want libraries, primary schools, firefighters or healthcare to be a competitive market. In modern society, they're essential needs, which need to stop catering to the capitalist overlords and need to focus on the needs of the many.

But that ignores the reality. Chrome is implementing new (often privacy harmful) features and because the Chrome market share is high enough websites depend on them. Then the average user has to pick Chrome because "Firefox is broken".

The network effects between website and viewers make the market real and failing to gain a significant market share results in you effectively being cut out and failing to serve the needs of most of your users (unless you can match Chrome's insane pace of development bug-for-bug).

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

#230

Post by LoganDark »

fredzel wrote: post #225
saghm wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also said "Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data”)", and I'm struggling to fathom what they could possibly think that "most people" think selling data could mean other than "giving your data to someone else for compensation", which seems pretty much exactly what the California law says. Yes, it's embedded in some legalese, but surely Mozilla has lawyers?

Most people probably envision selling data akin to shady person trading usb stick in dark alley or hackers selling huge batches of stolen data, so that statement will be true almost by default

most people I speak to about this tend to imagine selling data to be like people cold calling you with scams, getting suspicious advertisements that happen to be about stuff you just happened to be saying in the other room (which actually happened), and stuff like that. in Mozilla's case I'm pretty sure it's whatever Pocket is, considering how difficult it is in Firefox to turn that garbage off
Post reply on HN