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

271–280 of 381 posts

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

#271

Post by sundarurfriend »

zihotki wrote: post #215
saurik wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Would others? I don't think I have ever seen anyone defend that part of the equation. With Wikipedia's similar insanity--begging for donations to keep their servers on when they don't spend the money on that--I have at least seen some people who like what they do spend their money on as important to them, but I don't think I have ever seen anyone actively want to donate money to Firefox's random side projects instea…

You don't need to go far. Just look at the Thunderbird. People are donating to support it.

I believe saurik is talking about Mozilla's spending on "advocacy" and other non-product causes, not actual products like Thunderbird. While there are a few actual products other than Firefox (like Thunderbird), most of the "distractions" kstrauser speaks of are of a much less tangible nature that basically amount to "whatever catches Mozilla management's fancy that month".

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

#272

Post by gabeio »

debugnik wrote: post #196
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…

> but the reason why I don’t and probably will not donate to Mozilla ever again is that I have no idea what hare-brained acquisition they’ll do next. You can't donate to Mozilla Corporation at all, which is the entity maintaining Firefox and running these acquisitions. You can only donate to the Mozilla Foundation , which funds other campaigns.

> You can't donate to Mozilla Corporation at all, which is the entity maintaining Firefox and running these acquisitions. You can only donate to the Mozilla Foundation, which funds other campaigns.

The Mozilla Foundation is the parent of the Mozilla Corporation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation

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

#273

Post by luckylion »

kmacdough wrote: post #242
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?

I think they're trying to make the distinction between "we sell your searches and clicks attached to your personal id" and "we sell derivative aggregated information like we have a lot of users of X style to advertise to". But it's kinda hard to sift through exactly what they can and can't sell under this.

Wouldn't derivative aggregated information not be included in definitions like the one quoted because they specifically about personal data?

If you sell the information how many customers you have and how many shoes you've sold last month, are you selling your customer's personal data?

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

#274

Post by fc417fc802 »

wtallis wrote: post #156
raverbashing wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Even if they did, I doubt it qualifies if the consumer intended to post it publicly. There's a difference between selling a book that I published versus selling access to a private draft of a book that I keep in cloud storage and never agreed to let you sell.

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

#275

Post by Wilduck »

brookst wrote: post #265
0xFEE1DEAD wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I chose firefox because I don’t want my browser to build an ad network to sell targeted ads. And I definitely don't want this: > You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This doe…

It’s a weird term, but I’m not sure how “for the purpose of doing as you request” is terrible. To me that means that when you type a url, they have the right to do a DNS lookup for it. Is there some interpretation where “for the purpose of doing as you request” means any purpose they want?

The problem is that I'm not requesting Mozilla do anything. Firefox isn't a "service" it's a web browser. When I input a seach query, _I_ am acting on my behalf, not Mozilla.

I don't want any language where they get to insert themselves into that chain of behavior. Curl doesn't need a TOS, why does Firefox?

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

#276

Post by jrockway »

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 came here to quote the same sentence and ... yeah, they shouldn't be doing any of this stuff. It's an open source web browser. I type a URL into the URL bar, you send the domain name to my DNS server, then send the rest of the URL to whatever that resolves to, and then you render the content. At no point in this exchange is any oral communication or "valuable consideration" required.

Like sorry, if your selling point is "privacy" then you can't show ads on the new tab page. Debian was onto something when they called this software "IceWeasel".

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

#277

Post by zeckalpha »

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…

Selling access to be the default search engine could count under this definition, which was Mozilla's primary revenue source for decades.

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

#278

Post by EasyMark »

rdtsc wrote: post #135
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…

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…

When you keep the ip address, that often gives people everything that they need, along with "fingerprinting" data. Especially governments and huge corps like facebook/google/amazon, as they have you IP @ {date}/{time} as well. Match it up and you have the golden calf.

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

#279

Post by EasyMark »

0xFEE1DEAD wrote: post #216
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…

I chose firefox because I don’t want my browser to build an ad network to sell targeted ads. And I definitely don't want this: > You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This doe…

this is why I use librewolf

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

#280

Post by EasyMark »

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.

there are many offshoots, zen, floorp, librewolf (if you want that classic feel), waterfox, etc
Post reply on HN