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

331–340 of 381 posts

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

#331

Post by wtallis »

x0x0 wrote: post #330
wtallis wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For instance, suppose Mozilla partners with a search engine and could be claimed to get a discount or some other consideration for letting that search partner use search terms to improve the search engine. Something that isn't advertising related at all. That's probably a sale under CPRA. If a search engine partner wants to use search terms to improve their search engine, they only have to look at their own logs. T…

> Your complaint about "other valuable consideration" is just a complaint that the law isn't crippled by stupid loopholes. That's not the law. The search engine partner using those logs is probably valuable consideration and hence a sale. Mozilla doesn't even need to keep the data; just an api passthrough will qualify.

> The search engine partner using those logs is probably valuable consideration and hence a sale.

It's not a sale when the search engine doesn't get those logs from Mozilla. When a user sends a search query to Google using a Mozilla browser, it's Google's privacy policy that applies, not Mozilla's.

> Mozilla doesn't even need to keep the data; just an api passthrough will qualify.

There is no API passthrough in this scenario. Search queries go to the search engine directly without being relayed through Mozilla servers. Anything that does hit Mozilla's servers is entirely optional and unrelated to the purpose of satisfying the user's request for search results.

You don't need to speculate about how this could all be due to innocent ordinary operation of a web browser when Mozilla has already disclosed that they're voluntarily tracking users in ways that are not necessary for the operation of a web browser.

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

#332

Post by fph »

BSDobelix wrote: post #266
fph wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it a reputable project? What credentials does it have?

Well it's part of the Debian Main-repo, FreeBSD-Ports, FlatHub and brew on MacOS: https://librewolf.net/installation/

It does not seem to be part of the official Debian repositories; searching for librewolf returns no results: https://packages.debian.org/search?suite=default&section=all...

They have their own external repository indexed by extrepo, but "no warranty is made by the Debian project as to the security or quality of the software in these third-party repositories."

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

#333

Post by isaacremuant »

doright wrote: post #234
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…

Would it have been better if Firefox/Mozilla went under as a result of never compromising on their principles for income 5 years ago, as opposed to continuing to exist in this less than optimal form today? If the business incompetence of where to put all the existing money were resolved. I feel like the people who understand Mozilla's true principles have long since moved on by this point, and the crowd of those unaw…

Mozilla died as a principled company the day they fired Brendan Eich because he had once donated to a cause they didn't agree with.

It became all about the authoritarianism of wokeness. They wasted so much money in ridiculous tangents and became extremely partisan and censorious.

It's still the best browser due to extensions and customization but it's sad to see these news making it not that better than chrome when it comes to privacy.

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

#334

Post by johnklos »

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…

"other valuable consideration" would be what I'd consider the "transfer" of personal data (DNS lookups, browsing behavior) Mozilla makes to Cloudflare by defaulting United States users to using DNS-over-https without notice.

This is the kind of clarification we need, the same way we need actual laws so that companies can't play with the definition of "purchase" to refer to what are actually rentals.

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

#335

Post by cassianoleal »

Wilduck wrote: post #275
brookst wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I agree. The very fact that they added a Terms of Service is weird. I don't want Firefox to be a service in any way. It's a tool.

When I drill a hole in my wall, DeWalt don't tell anyone who I am, how large a hole it is, what material I drilled into or even the fact that I actually drilled anything. They don't know any of that, and neither should Mozilla know when my local copy of the browser makes a DNS, HTTP or any other request.

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

#336

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #106
userbinator wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies have been long concerned about exfiltration of data and ran MITM proxies to stop it, which ironically has been the target of propaganda about "privacy" by the browser makers. Every home network needs a MITM proxy too.

"Every home network needs a MITM proxy too." I have been running one for long time now. I depend on it so much that I cannot imagine using the internet without it. It is much smaller and easier to compile than a graphical browser. Others will have different opinions but I personally remain skeptical that TLS provides internet users with more value than it provides so-called "tech" companies that profit from data coll…

(Note to self: Initially points++.)

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

#337

Post by debugnik »

gabeio wrote: post #272
debugnik wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Which means the Corporation's profits flow upwards to the Foundation. But donations to the latter can't easily flow downwards to a for-profit.

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

#338

Post by rafaelgoncalves »

GrantMoyer wrote: post #298

Each update from Mozilla about this issue has Mozilla claiming users are confused (which may be true; I don't follow the larger social media ecosystem), then doubling down on the part I'm personally concerned about. I'm worried that Mozilla is asserting it needs a license for the information input into Firefox for Firefox to do it's job, since that's factually untrue. So either Mozilla is genuinely confused about thi…

totally agree and i have this same feeling. An the fact they provide this "updates" and doubling down the same points is unnerving.

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

#340

Post by tiltowait »

leetnewb wrote: post #153
zamadatix wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It implies maintaining the browser would better fund the mission in the long run than selling user data to adtech now as the user count continues to decline. Google pays Apple 18 billion dollars per year to be the default search engine on Safari. If Firefox had managed to stay just as popular imagine how much more money they'd have been making on search deals these last 5 years and how much of that could have went to…

Firefox can't compete with iOS or Android for what should be obvious reasons - it is structurally impossible. Also, the competing browsers are way better today than in Firefox's heyday. There is very little reason to use Firefox today outside of ideological.

Firefox (and its derivatives) is swiftly becoming the only place you can run full uBlock Origin. That's a good reason right there.

Ignoring adblock, I think you could flip it. Chrome and Firefox are basically interchangeable, so if there's little reason to choose Firefox, there's also little reason to choose Chrome.

Post reply on HN