Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 1001 posts

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

#391

Post by _mitterpach »

geomark wrote: post #384

Ask HN: Is Brave an ok alternative?

Depends, but with this news you will probably not be downgrading too much.

Brave really does have a bunch of very nice features, I particularly enjoyed using them on my phone to download videos from youtube for online listening. Built-in adblocking is very enjoyable too.

Do note that there had been several smaller controversies, including one that 'Honey' got recently into hot water for, which was replacing affiliate links with their own. There is currently an on-going lawsuit with Honey for this.

In honesty, look at the controversies page on wikipedia and decide for yourself, I don't think there is a good or a bad choice here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Controvers...

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

#393

Post by p0w3n3d »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #360
p0w3n3d wrote: post #303

I'm shocked when in 2025 the term "you stay in control" regarding browser emerges as something exclusive. When a web page or a program is downloaded to my computer I cannot imagine anything else, yet every major company tries to do something opposed - take the control from me as soon as possible.

My mental model of a browser is the same as of any tool, as a hammer, purely defined by its technical capabilities to do a job, like to display a website and offer basic functionality like for saving a bookmark. The very idea of an entity called "we", an anonymous and ever-changing cast of people managing "responsible defaults" and "simple tools to manage your data" and communicating it on their terms, making me try…

I consider a browser as similar as a complicated curl with GUI. Therefore:

- when I see that browser does not allow playing video in the background (youtube on mobile phones)

- when my browser disallows me blocking certain things

- when my browser prevents me from taking screenshot of things I can see on it

... it really angers me, as I feel betrayed. Of course, nowadays, web applications tend to get complicated and hide everything behind 'obscurity-security'; however, this should still be code that is a guest on my device, not me being a guest on their device running their code. I consider it extremely impolite behaviour.

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

#394

Post by mzajc »

huang_chung wrote: post #239
anonym29 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's chromium, and then, for those who take their privacy more seriously than the average VPN customer that just wants to do piracy, there's ungoogled-chromium. It's like chromium, just without feeding heaps of your personally-identifying metadata directly to Google, who give it directly to the NSA, who give it directly to Elon Musk and DOGE. Remember, ALL mass surveillance by ALL intelligence agencies is ALWAYS a…

> metadata directly to Google, who give it directly to the NSA, who give it directly to Elon Musk and DOGE Source?

A few years ago Google came under fire for sending extra identifiers to Google's websites in a header named X-Client-Data[0]. I don't remember how many identifying bits that includes or whether they still do it, but it was the tipping point for me.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22236106

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

#395

Post by chinathrow »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #344

>UPDATE: We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses, so we want to clear that up. We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox, for example. It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice. From their blog post…

Absolute bullshit.

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

#397

Post by Parae »

rvense wrote: post #378
_mitterpach wrote: post #366

Link directly to the Github commit: https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b... , which links to the following issue: https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/issues/16016 There are a bunch of locked Google docs linked in the issue, probably internal privacy guidelines. I can't say that this surprises me, perhaps they are looking for alternate revenue streams in case Google cuts them out? To HN: Will yo…

Yeah, I've been a Firefox user and Mozilla supporter for approaching two decades now, even used to donate monthly to the foundation. I'm furious over this. I installed LibreWolf on my personal machines last night and expect to uninstall Firefox after work today.

I'm a happy LibreWolf for years. The transition from FF to LibreWolf is seamless. And you won't be surprised anymore nor annoyed when Mozilla does moves like that.

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

#398

Post by c0l0 »

_mitterpach wrote: post #366

Link directly to the Github commit: https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b... , which links to the following issue: https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/issues/16016 There are a bunch of locked Google docs linked in the issue, probably internal privacy guidelines. I can't say that this surprises me, perhaps they are looking for alternate revenue streams in case Google cuts them out? To HN: Will yo…

"No better place to leave for" seems an apt way to put it.

I think/fear that in the long run, there will be fewer and fewer ways to participate in activities and communities on the web on your own terms, as only a vetted, allowlisted set of client builds (that may be "open source" on the tin, but by that point it is effectively meaningless) will be able to pass CDN "anti-abuse" restrictions. It will not be a better web, but it sure will be more profitable for some.

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

#399

Post by perihelions »

_mitterpach wrote: post #366

Link directly to the Github commit: https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b... , which links to the following issue: https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/issues/16016 There are a bunch of locked Google docs linked in the issue, probably internal privacy guidelines. I can't say that this surprises me, perhaps they are looking for alternate revenue streams in case Google cuts them out? To HN: Will yo…

What's the purpose of gating "we don’t sell access to your data" by "if switch('firefox-tou')"?

        {% if switch('firefox-tou') %}
          
Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too.

        {% else %}
          
Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too.

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

#400

Post by pmontra »

> When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information,

Taken literally it means that when I use Firefox to upload a file to a customer's web site Mozilla is getting that file too, which does not seem likely. They could get a copy of the text I'm typing right now in Firefox or it means that the browser could do some local processing on those data. But if the results of that processing would stay local why would they ask the permission? It's not that emacs, vim, grep, sed, awk etc have to ask me the permission to use the information I'm inputting into them. So they are definitely sending information back home or they plan to do it.

The point becomes how to block any calls from Firefox to Mozilla. Note that don't have a Firefox account because I never trusted that the data in transit from them would stay private. I'm not logged in into Google as well. Maybe I have to finally install a Pi Hole and route all my traffic through it. Hopefully Blockada will take care of that for my Android devices.

Post reply on HN