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

51–60 of 1001 posts

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

#51

Post by sevensor »

ziddoap wrote: post #45
rightbyte wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is really unfortunate. My Firefox install lately added links to what could be considered not so nice sites for grandmas like amazon.com and hotels.com to the start screen. It is quite clear they see it as their program not mine program. I dunno for how long I will stick to using the least worst alternative. To go for custom builds would be giving up on Mozilla. edit: Toned down language

> scam sites like amazon.com Since when is Amazon a scam site ? I don't like em' either, but hyperbole doesn't help. For what it's worth, it can be removed in about 4 seconds.

Considering how hard it is to avoid dodgy counterfeit merchandise in certain product categories, that seems like an apt description.

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

#52

Post by mozball »

xena wrote: post #34

I hate it when people get angry about this exact term of phrase. This is the legal definition of how user generated content works. What they're really saying is "if you upload anything to us, we're allowed to distribute it either back to you, or to other people". Yet another case of false panic.

If people are misinterpreting mozilla's legalese, that is mozilla's fault for making these terms vague, broad and easy to misinterpret. Also i am not convinced your interpretation is correct.

Mozilla Firefox didn't have a 'Terms of Use' for 20 years. Why now?

Its quite clear they're seeking to expand their rights over their users data with their new privacy policy while simultaneously reducing user rights with this new 'Terms of Use'. i.e. Enshitification

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

#53

Post by hellcow »

torben-friis wrote: post #43
hellcow wrote: post #38

Since Mozilla removed all mention of not selling my data in a recent PR and seems hellbent on an ad-based future, I've deleted my Firefox account and moved to Librewolf across my devices, and I'll encourage everyone I know to do the same. It's a sad end to my literal decades of support for them.

I'm not familiar with this change, do you have a link?

The phrase "we don’t sell access to your data" has been removed, gated behind a feature flag connected to this TOS change. Their FAQ was updated to remove the "Does Firefox sell your personal data? Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That’s a promise" as well. [0]

Combined with their blog posts from the CEO saying "we also need to take steps to diversify: investing in privacy-respecting advertising to grow new revenue in the near term." [1]

[0] https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b...

[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-leadership-growt...

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

#54

Post by jasonjayr »

CGamesPlay wrote: post #40

> Remember that to display, edit, transform (underline, italicize, fonts) the documents you write in MacWrite necessarily requires copying your document data from disk to memory to cpu to memory to display – lots of copying. Did Claris need the rights to your copyright to allow you to edit your documents in its software? This analogy doesn't hold water in the context of giving the coparty access to your intellectual…

Yet, modern mobile app stores insist on a privacy policy even if you don't send data to a server owned by the app vendor.

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

#55

Post by mtzaldo »

winkelmann wrote: post #33

An interesting implication of this is that it would point to Firefox being considered a service from Mozilla (hence why they need a license to facilitate your use of the program). If we now look at their "Acceptable Use Policy", we can find this: > You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to [...] Upload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that includes graphic depictions of sexuality or violenc…

Isn't the internet for pr0n?

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

#56

Post by DrBenCarson »

sevensor wrote: post #51
ziddoap wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> scam sites like amazon.com Since when is Amazon a scam site ? I don't like em' either, but hyperbole doesn't help. For what it's worth, it can be removed in about 4 seconds.

Considering how hard it is to avoid dodgy counterfeit merchandise in certain product categories, that seems like an apt description.

https://www.onlyamazingseller.com/us.html

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

#57

Post by ziddoap »

renewedrebecca wrote: post #50
ziddoap wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> scam sites like amazon.com Since when is Amazon a scam site ? I don't like em' either, but hyperbole doesn't help. For what it's worth, it can be removed in about 4 seconds.

> For what it's worth, it can be removed in about 4 seconds. Sure, but why should anyone have to?

Look, I hate ads as much as the next person.

But Firefox also needs to generate money somehow, right? A small advert to amazon/hotels/whatever that can be removed basically permanently with a small change in the settings is about the best balance I can think of.

If you donate to Mozilla, I have more sympathy for you. Perhaps they could make it so that if you have a Firefox account linked to a donation that they remove this, or something.

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

#58

Post by diggan »

jasonjayr wrote: post #54
CGamesPlay wrote: post #40

> Remember that to display, edit, transform (underline, italicize, fonts) the documents you write in MacWrite necessarily requires copying your document data from disk to memory to cpu to memory to display – lots of copying. Did Claris need the rights to your copyright to allow you to edit your documents in its software? This analogy doesn't hold water in the context of giving the coparty access to your intellectual…

Yet, modern mobile app stores insist on a privacy policy even if you don't send data to a server owned by the app vendor.

Couldn't you add a privacy policy that states just that? "This application doesn't send/save/process/use any user data" for example, should be a valid privacy policy if that's true.

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

#59

Post by winkelmann »

unethical_ban wrote: post #47
winkelmann wrote: post #33

An interesting implication of this is that it would point to Firefox being considered a service from Mozilla (hence why they need a license to facilitate your use of the program). If we now look at their "Acceptable Use Policy", we can find this: > You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to [...] Upload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that includes graphic depictions of sexuality or violenc…

Firefox has Mozilla facilitated services in it, and the license is saying " we get to use the data we see to help the service". I don't think their AUP considers the browser software a service.

> I don't think their AUP considers the browser software a service.

One would think so, right? But why does Mozilla want me to "license" to them everything I "upload or input [...] through Firefox"[1]. Where do the "facilitated services" start and where do they end? It sure would be nice if they could draw that distinction, without it, the cautious interpretation would be that that everything is a facilitated service.

[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/

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

#60

Post by roblabla »

Apreche wrote: post #41

There are valid criticisms to make of these ToS. However, if someone is going to stop using Firefox because of these new terms, I would assume that person is already not using any products or services from Apple, Microsoft, Google, Meta, etc. Seems pretty hypocritical otherwise.

The type of product/service matters here. We're talking about a browser here, with the name "User Agent" being popularized by Mozilla,for fuck's sake.

I don't use Google or meta services. I do use apple's and Microsoft's OS, but last time I checked, neither of those required me to give a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to Microsoft or Apple for all the data that I input into their OS - even when it goes through the TCP stack. Yet this is what Mozilla has in their own license. (and yes, before you ask, I did review the macOS TOS. You can find them here if you're interested: https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOSSequoia.pdf)

For all their problems, MS/Apple TOS are usually for things that interact with their services. Here, firefox's new TOS is ridiculously wide and touches things that do not interact with Mozilla's services, for no reason.

So, no, I do not see the hypocrisy.

Post reply on HN