Live data from Hacker News

Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

blog.mozilla.org

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

#291
post #232

This made me look into Firefox forks/alternatives: Librewolf [1] seems to be fairly active (last commit on Codeberg was last week) and up-to-date with the latest upstream releases (mirrors FF's versioning scheme and matches their latest). Has a nice focus on privacy and no-telemetry. Floorp [2] also looks active (last commit last week), also claims focus on privacy. Based off FF's extended support releases so it may…

Try going to gitlab.com with librewolf, you'll see a white page with no content. Librewolf is blocked off from half the internet that uses cloudflare, so it's kind of a useless browser.

Every browser that's not a majority browser will be associated with these kind of blocking risk. I can't risk access to my financially important accounts, nobody can. So to me this is not a feasible alternative.

The only way to build a browser is to act like one of the others, and to behave like one of the others. Can't use brave, given their history, but farbling approach is the most sustainable solution in my opinion.

My remaining hope is that ladybird will actively deny implementing web standards that can be used for fingerprinting.

Something as simple as overflow:hidden is used on every website to force people to get tracked by having to activate JS, and things like this should be something a web browser should protect its users from.

We need a CSS engine that denies setting these kinds of things, because JS fingerprint prevention isn't enough if every website breaks because of it.

If you want a headstart, I tried forking webkit and do exactly this. Project is unmaintained because couldn't work fulltime on it without funding. Maybe somebody else picks it up? [1]

[1] https://github.com/tholian-network/retrokit

Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

#292

Title is inaccurate. Mozilla get a nonexclusive license. That is different from ownership. The license grant in these terms does not specify the license is irrevocable. The licensor, i.e., the Firefox user, reserves the right to revoke.

The license does not say that Mozilla owns information that the user inputs through Firefox. But the HN title does. If Mozilla owns the information then it would have no need for a license. Further, the license does not specify that it is perpetual. A Firefox user does not grant Mozilla perpetual rights to use the information. These rights can be terminated.

Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

#293

The other WTF is here: Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, and you agree that you will not use Firefox to infringe anyone’s rights or violate any applicable laws or regulations. Acceptable Use Policy links to https://www.mozilla.org/about/legal/acceptable-use/ which says "You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to[...]Upload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that…

Firefox-the-browser isn't a service, it's a product. Their services are things like profile syncing. It makes sense to me that they wouldn't want content on their servers that they could get in legal trouble for hosting.

Comments such as yours are missing the point.

Mozilla's ToS applies for Firefox's use, and this is literally written by Mozilla themselves:

“Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy”

There's no distinction between the browser and Mozilla's online services here.

---

And even if it were referring only to features such as “profile syncing” (and it doesn't refer only to that), does this mean that people can't have bookmarks to porn? And why would Mozilla care about how people use profile syncing at all? I thought it was e2e encrypted.

Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My conspiracy theory is that gears are slowly turning to revamp the culture, redefine what’s acceptable/not acceptable and eventually suggest that if you won’t have kids you’re not accepted in the society. Basically a funky way to reverse the population decline, as the governments are realizing this problem won’t be fixed by free markets and etc.

It seems like not so much a conspiracy theory as something totally transparent and out in the open. There's a huge political push to birth as many babies as possible. Major political parties have it as part of their platform. Their spokespeople talk derisively of "childless cat ladies" and how you're not a real contributor to society unless you produce babies. The "Birth" lobby is a stool composed of several legs: 1.…

Pretty much, yeah. Like everything is factually right, but I completely disagree with their method. So far, they’ve failed at each step.

There’s a very obvious “pro-religion” push going on across all social media as well, but it’s hard to pinpoint when/how it started. Not sure how far they’ll have to roll back women’s rights to get where they want to, but it’s incredibly sad to watch. Not sure how fathers with daughters are going to watch this happen in real time as well.

Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't get it. Is Mozilla phoning home the fact that I pressed the button?

Short answer: No. Long answer: Unless the button says "phone home my information to Mozilla", this license wouldn't cover that. This license only covers whatever is necessary to make the button itself work - whatever is necessary to realize the user's intent.

They didn't need a license to your data before. Why should they need it now?

Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

#296

Urgh Mozilla needs to focus on being a good web browser, Id even pay, but you cant

I pay for Relay... I'm sure it's a mistake though bc it'll get ended sometime soon and I'll have to figure out how to transfer all my email aliases elsewhere...

Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

#297
post #268

The problem with Firefox is it almost impossible to sell today (compared to 10 or 20 years ago). - It doesn't have better performance or security. - If you want better privacy and ad-blocking out of the box, Brave is the way to go. - The "supporting an independent implementation" argument doesn't really resonate anymore. I am wondering if the small market share it has left on desktop (especially in Europe and Germany…

I tried using Brave ages ago. I wanted to like it, but it crashed even more often than Firefox (which is a feat unto itself) and didn't have the option to tag bookmarks.

> but it crashed even more often than Firefox (which is a feat unto itself)

Er, you maybe should check your RAM and GPU. I've run Firefox on a lot of different systems, with everything from vanilla profiles and no saved tabs to loads of extensions and literally thousands of tabs, and it basically never crashes. Well, the beta version can be a little less stable, but... beta version. Could just be that I'm lucky or you're unlucky, but I'd strongly suggest checking your hardware and maybe GPU drivers.

Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

#298
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd go with Ungoogled Chromium at that point.

I’m kind of addicted to tab containers right now and I have them set up in a way where I can proxy specific containers out different socks proxies that go through different VPN tunnels. Niche I know but it’s keeping me on FF.

OMG do you have a writeup on how you do that?

Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

#299
I am, unfortunately, looking at alternative browsers because of this. Firefox was the best fit. Big enough that they could reasonably keep up but not one of the corporate browsers that I have 0 trust in. It wasn't perfect but it was better than chrome for sure.

Browsers are like cars now. It is becoming impossible to buy a new(er) car and have your privacy respected, but it is unreasonable to expect any normal life (at least in most of the US) without using cars or browsers. So, things like cars and browsers should have strong protections because there is no avoiding them. Unfortunately that is obviously not the case. You should never be forced to sign an adversarial TOS to earn a living or live a normal life, but here we are. TOS that are effective without you even reading them, that say they own you, everything you type, everything you do, that change and bind you without your consent or knowledge and what are you going to do about it? Given any reasonable choice I will take it, but the reasonable choices are dwindling.

Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

#300

Title is a complete lie/misleading. They get a license, not ownership. Let's dissect what it actually says, and we do it backwards, because given the discussion around this subject it seems like people space out or have their mind clouded by outrage before they get to the end of the sentence: > help you [do things] as you indicate with your use of Firefox. So this already only covers things that you indicate you want…

And how do I deny Mozilla this request to grant them a license “to help me”?

Firefox is dead. What do I use now?

Post reply on HN