[flagged]
Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
561–570 of 1001 posts
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#562Mozilla became an ads company after acquiring ads tech startup Anonym. These changes follow that direction.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#563Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have long left the sinking ship and switched to enshitified and actually private https://librewolf.net/
Which will go under within a few years of FF dying. (Yes, the current code may still work, but the web will move on without it.)
i don't think that matters. we are looking for firefox based alternatives to get away from stupid policy changes, not to find a browser that has a better chance of survival.
any alternatives will be good as long as firefox is alive. if firefox itself dies, then that's an entirely different matter.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#564Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have to grant Word a license to what I type in it. This is a highly unusual clause that other software doesn't have. When software has to "phone home" to deliver the functionality you requested, then two things happen: One, a number of privacy regulations kick in, and they need to get you to agree to send your data to them. Two, they now get to move your data out of your control. I mean, you trust them today,…
> I don't have to grant Word a license to what I type in it. Yes you do. From Microsoft's Services Agreement [1]: > To the extent necessary to provide the Services to you and others, to protect you and the Services, and to improve Microsoft products and services, you grant to Microsoft a worldwide and royalty-free intellectual property license to use Your Content, for example, to make copies of, retain, transmit, ref…
My Word 95 never asked for this though? Clearly it’s not necessary to provide me a word processor.
My CS4, as far as I recall, has never asked for it either.
It seems a fairly recent thing that companies want to harvest your personal information.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#565The only surprise here is that people are surprised by this. Mozilla is an advertising company, since almost a year ago.
Fully agree, here is a context for those who missed it https://www.adexchanger.com/privacy/mozilla-acquires-anonym-...
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#566Earlier quoted context omitted.
> remove any wording along the lines of "Firefox will never sell your data to advertisers" You mean wording like this? ""Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data“), and we don’t buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements…
Here is the next sentence from that FAQ: > We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP) So they are sharing your data with partners, commercially. but only in "anonymized" f…
The only thing they need to do to make Firefox commercially viable is to have me pay them for the browser.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#567What does that mean for the Tor browser [0] which is based on Firefox? [0] https://www.torproject.org/
It means that the state got a two-for-one deal.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#568Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Chrome works marginally better" Performance, compatibility, security. Chromium runs faster, it works with more websites, it's sandbox is better, particularly on Android. I don't care much about memory usage as I don't need a billion tabs open at once (does anyone). There's options available beyond Chrome that offer most of the same privacy benefits as Firefox does. I think marginal is an understatement. As for Moz…
> (does anyone) Oh yes. And you don't even need that many tabs open for Chrome to eat half of your RAM.
Fewer than 100 will massively pig out memory, on Android, Linux, and MacOS, for Chrome, IME.
My main FF instance has ~1,500 tabs FWIW, though I'll often bypass those for a given session by running incognito only. Even then I'll easily hit 100+ tabs in only a few minutes.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#569Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which network access is telemetry?
User explicitly requests connection to a specific server (e.g. navigates to debian.org), so browser makes a connection to debian.org: Not telemetry. User explicitly requests a connection to a specific server (e.g. navigates debian.org), then browser makes a connection to mozilla.org to upload metadata: Telemetry. In general telemetry is when the software connects to a server chosen by the developers and not telemetry…
When I open Slack, to which servers am I explicitly requesting a connection?
I see your point, but my point is that implementing this is either impossible or would require changing how networks are used by programs at a fundamental level.
A middle ground might be to create a distro that uses something like SELinux to prevent all network access to non-system processes. Then each package would have to be audited to determine which addresses it can bind to, and/or which name lookups it can do, and how those capabilities are connected to actions performed by the user. Then there is still the question of what to do about software that accesses the network independent of the user, but maybe you can argue that shouldn't exist. How do updates work? Besides, if I allow Slack to connect to mychats.slack.com, nothing prevents the software from sending telemetry to that endpoint. You would need an army of manual enforcers, and that's not to mention non-free software.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#570Earlier quoted context omitted.
So: # apt install librewolf Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Reading state information... Done E: Unable to locate package librewolf If the thing that doesn't suck isn't the thing that comes with the OS, it's time to fix the OS. Also, that feature should exist. The next time I see a story about MS training ChatGPT on your nude selfies, I want to be able to show people the big red switch…
Apt is basically just a bad package manager: nix run nixpkgs#librewolf But I do agree, it's hard to find these alternatives, and have them be "just works". Librewolf still sometimes have weird issues (for good reasons!), but it means I don't recommend it to "normies". I just tell them to use firefox and most importantly adblock, giving up ads is a huge ROI both in terms of quality of life and data privacy. Everything…
Apt being a bad package manager is not related to the selection of packages that Debian ships or doesn't.