Live data from Hacker News

An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

blog.mozilla.org

191–200 of 381 posts

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

#191
post #149

TLDR Firefox has been selling your data all along in exchange for ad money, but now state laws with more teeth forced them to come clean about this behavior.

Could you quote where it says that?

Sure. It's the part right after the horizontal rule line.

> 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 the transfer] of a consumer’s personal information [from one business to another in exchange for something of value].

> [...]

> 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.

This is them saying "it's not that we've suddenly become more evil... we've been doing this for a while... we gotta make money somehow, and advertising and sharing your data is how we do that, but now state privacy laws make us have to be clearer about it".

Firefox gets almost all of its money from Google Search sponsorships and other ads. (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/041315/how-m...). It's not really that different from any other adtech company. It's just one degree away, but most of that sweet user data still flows to Google in the end. Sure, they might obscure some of the PII... but so did FLoC, Google's controversial attempt to keep tracking users after third-party cookies.

Firefox is just a privacy laundering operation for Google and some smaller advertisers. Then Mozilla uses most of that money on unrelated marketing and virtue signaling, pretending like they're some sort of privacy / civil rights champion, when in reality they're not really very different from any other ad-based browser maker — except that they're horribly inefficient at using their millions. All that money and Firefox has still fallen way behind, all while Mozilla keeps pretending they're some sort of enlightened think tank. Nobody actually pays attention to any of their think-tank related work or their other services. Either as a browser maker or a privacy-oriented nonprofit, they're completely ineffective.

If Google stops funding them, they'd shut down overnight, losing 90% of their revenue. And maybe that's a good thing... it's time for a more capable org to take the reins. Mozilla has been a terrible steward, and Firefox went from the thing that saved the internet (from a Microsoft IE monopoly and the super-bloated app suite that Netscape Communicator / Mozilla Suite became) to then crumbling under the poor leadership of its lost decade.

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

#192
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, any application that even collects personal data is problematic for me. Personal data of a user has a value, and a large repository of personal data, of millions of users, makes the company valuable too. Any data collected can be monetised, if not immediately (as part of the company's business model) or in the future (when the company is sold). With Mozilla, for example, displaying sponsored links using F…

I'm not sure you and they agree on the meaning of collect: If you input personal data into Firefox - e.g., an email you type in a Gmail - then they 'collect' it. Unless you use Firefox only for anonymous purposes, some data must pass through Firefox. > With Mozilla, for example, displaying sponsored links using Firefox Suggest ( https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/fi ... ) means collecting and s…

> I'm not sure you and they agree on the meaning of collect: If you input personal data into Firefox - e.g., an email you type in a Gmail - then they 'collect' it.

"They" in this context is Mozilla the organization, not Firefox the process in memory. For Mozilla to collect information, information has to leave my computer and end up on Mozilla's computer.

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

#193
post #179
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but only Mozilla is damaging Mozilla here. Anyone could have predicted that their actions these past days would be devastating to their reputation.

[flagged]

If you asked some random selection of technical people, "hey if Mozilla just went ahead and made a ToS which gives Mozilla a broad license to anything you enter into Firefox, then removed the text 'Mozilla won't sell your data' from their FAQ pages, how would people react?" I think 99.9% of people would've predicted that the reaction would be negative.

These things aren't as impossible to anticipate as you pretend. This backlash is 100% predictable, 100% Mozilla's fault, and 100% deserved.

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

#194
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is that Mozilla has used language that is what you'd expect if the browser is sending data to Mozilla ; there's no need for such language if the browser is acting purely as a user agent and sending data to the address you put in the URL bar.

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 data. A web browser does not, because the vendor of the web browser does not need to know what you're doing with your copy of the browser.

Mozilla the legal entity that can be the recipient of a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license is not the same as Firefox with PID 3808 on my machine. PID 3808 does not need, and cannot need, and cannot receive a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to anything. PID 3808 is not a legal person. This fundamental distinction between code I'm running on my machine and services provided by Mozilla is why the legal terms of use for Firefox should not be lumped in to the same document as the terms of use for Mozilla's various services.

Mozilla the legal entity does not need a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to the comments I post to HN using my copy of Firefox, any more than Netgear the legal entity needs a license to those comments because a Netgear box is transmitting those packets.

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

#195

> 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.

Librewolf is a Firefox fork with this crap removed.

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

#196

It may be relevant that Mozilla recently acquired a Meta-created ad tracking company and is now awash with Meta ad execs. [0] It may also be relevant that Meta is recently upsetting people in Europe for tracking and targeting people in spite of Europe's data protection rules [1]. My guess (and this is just speculation at this point) is that Meta and Mozilla think they're being clever and getting away with some "priva…

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.

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

#197
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…

Mozilla were pulling in ~$500M/year on those search deals. So on year one, spend $15M on a team of 20+ highly competent full time developers for Firefox, put $450M into a trust to fund future development, and find something to waste $35M on. Then for the next 15 years, find something to waste $500M on. The amount of money they've squandered is mind-boggling. If their goal had been to develop Firefox/Thunderbird/Mozil…

They've not developed the suite for... between 15 and 20 years I believe; and Thunderbird for over 10 years. For the past several years, Thunderbird is back under the MZLA Technologies Corporation, but - it is funded by donations (and doing rather well in that respect it seems).

So - Firefox is the "only" thing they need to develop.

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

#198
Are we able - with the version of FF currently out - to completely disable all transmission of data to Mozilla?

Of course this might change with these announced plans, but I want to know if the current baseline can be safe to use (without patching), or whether it's already rather far-gone.

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

#200
post #150

> 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?

From their privacy policy [1]:

"we work with partners, service providers, suppliers and contractors"

But they won't disclose which partners and what Mozilla gets in exchange. Which is opaque, and probably intentionally so.

You can scroll down to the types of data and lawful bases they list for these data exchanges.

[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/#how-is-your-d...

Post reply on HN