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

281–290 of 381 posts

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

#281

Post by wtallis »

luckylion wrote: post #273
kmacdough wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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?

To make that analogy fair for the scope of what Mozilla's doing, the shoe store would have to be selling data about what color shirts people are wearing when they visit the shoe store.

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

#282

Post by GrantMoyer »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #264

Their stance is: "The post office needs an unrestricted license to the content of your letters to transport them". This is beyond ridiculous.

More like Bic needs unrestricted access to your letters so their pen can write them for you.

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

#283

Post by EasyMark »

solardev wrote: post #98
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…

Their weird org structure is their own fault. Millions of dollars squandered on things most people simply do not care about, while neglecting Firefox for a decade. When Firefox/Firebird/Phoenix first came out, the org structure wasn't that weird yet. The hybrid structure came a few years later, and even then it was fine for a while, but somehow mission creep set in and they became this ginormous org that did nothing…

I too wish they would have spent money only on the improving the browser, obvious things like sync, and probably web standards, that's all they really need to do. They don't need to be doing stuff like "social equality" or web DEI or any of that. They don't need to be dabbling in a dozen side businesses.

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

#284

Post by ummonk »

devmor wrote: post #255
the_other wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do they decide which sponsored ad to show you?

On your device: "Interests: Candles, Wooden Sculptures, Underwater Basket Weaving" Advertiser: "Show this to users who like Candles." Mozilla: "OK" That's pretty standard and can be used to track people on the advertiser's side still, depending on how the ad itself is served and how clicks on the ad are processed.

Does Firefox download information about every ad that advertisers have paid for, and then match against local data to decide which ad to serve?

If not, when it queries to find out which ads to serve, what data does is sent with that query (or prior to that query)?

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

#286

Post by EasyMark »

kevincox wrote: post #228
WhyNotHugo wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ne…

Firefox isn't broken, I literally use it all day long as my browser for work and home usage. Rare occasions I pull out brave, maybe once a month, for something that has an issue, and usually that's not it, it's an extension or something.

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

#287

Post by kstrauser »

saurik wrote: post #128
kstrauser wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t help that they make it hard to donate to a specific product’s development. I’d donate to Firefox. I wouldn’t give a penny to anything of their other distractions. (And others would support exactly the opposite, I’m sure. But no one gets to sponsor what they personally care about.)

(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…

Probably not, but you know if I left that out, someone would claim the opposite just for contrariness.

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

#288

Post by kevincox »

EasyMark wrote: post #286
kevincox wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ne…

Firefox isn't broken, I literally use it all day long as my browser for work and home usage. Rare occasions I pull out brave, maybe once a month, for something that has an issue, and usually that's not it, it's an extension or something.

I also use it almost exclusively, but sites that don't support it (or more often that just don't test against it and have various broken features) are becoming more common. As the market share shrinks this will become more and more common.

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

#289

Post by EasyMark »

wtallis wrote: post #194
eipi10_hn wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, legal words are frustrating like that. When the law comes to their house, using "acting purely as a user agent and sending data" will just help them on reddit but not on court. And no, you don't always send the data to the "address in URL bar", there can be services that are in iframes or with other add-on services like their Pocket, VPN, AI chats (ChatGPT...), similar to any client softwares sending data to ot…

I feel like you're deliberately ignoring the crux of the issue: a web browser's job does not require anything remotely resembling a copyright license from the user to the browser vendor . Yes, Mozilla has been developing and acquiring a host of other services, many of which do involve Mozilla taking possession of user data and processing it. Those services need legal policies that cover Mozilla doing stuff with your…

why can't they let you opt into those services and agreements at the opt in part? There's a middle ground they are completely ignoring. The only way around it is to install a fork of firefox that doesn't have any of it.

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

#290

Post by lolinder »

zeckalpha wrote: post #277
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.

Wait, what? What part of this definition would include selling a default setting?

> selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information

Mozilla doesn't need my personal information at all to set a default search engine.

Post reply on HN