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

571–580 of 1001 posts

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

#571

Post by stateoff »

flir wrote: post #548
stateoff wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely agree. The blog post is claiming the opposite to what their ToS is granting - but one is fluff (that will be forgotten soon) while the other is legally binding. I cannot imagine applications like browsers that would require such an unrestricted license for user input just to do its service. That clearly indicates some "other" future motive that is underlined by the notion to remove the FAQ entry and other…

I haven't read the article. All I know is, Firefox changed their TOS. > That clearly indicates some "other" future motive It's training data, isn't it? (It's always training data).

I was referring to Mozilla's past investment into advertising: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-t...

To me that and the new ToS add up, why else would they remove the FAQ entry.

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

#572

Post by blendergeek »

jcranmer wrote: post #154
userbinator wrote: post #151

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…

> It's against the Terms of Use to use Firefox to... watch porn? Firefox isn't a Mozilla service. The Mozilla services are things like account sync, or the review tool they use.

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

The fact that Firefox isn't a "Mozilla Service" seems irrelevant.

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

#573

Post by mort96 »

kome wrote: post #503
mort96 wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I switched to LibreWolf over this, and it's good so far. A couple of things: * I had to switch off the fingerprinting protection. For me, running at 60 FPS and without automatic CSS dark mode detection isn't worth whatever fingerprint resistance it provides. Sadly, you don't have granular control over RFP, you have to turn it off entirely. * It doesn't have Google Search available by default, but it turned out to be…

honestly, at this point it makes sense to use vanilla Firefox for you, that offers exactly what you need and it's still quite good about privacy.

I agree, which is why I used vanilla Firefox until now. I don't want or need the additional privacy features LibreWolf (or other forks) offer.

But I don't want to use a browser from a company which gives themselves a broad license to do whatever they want with whatever data I enter into the browser. It's probably just a matter of time until Mozilla exercises this right to send stuff I enter into Firefox back to Mozilla for ad targeting and AI training purposes, and I don't want that. I have some faith that the LibreWolf team will notice such features and rip them out when they appear.

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

#574

Post by zihotki »

chmod775 wrote: post #170

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…

The main problem with the "important part in cursive" is that it's Mozilla execs who decide what is actually a "to help you". There is no way to opt-out of "help".

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

#575

Post by MrAlex94 »

dmantis wrote: post #554
MrAlex94 wrote: post #450

I might have differed with Brendan Eich on a few matters, but he was a good steward of Firefox in my book. When Mitchell Baker took the reins, Mozilla became rather more heavy-handed towards us - the irony being that Waterfox was once proudly displayed on the Mozilla website under their "Powered By" banner. I appreciate the constant existential wobble Firefox faces, but they've made some peculiar decisions as of late…

I don't see how a regulated entity is better in any way than an individual. We repeatedly see attacks on freedom and privacy by the people who are supposed to protect them, those so-called "regulators": chatcontrol, recent UK backdoor wishes, repeated French proposals to enforce DRM even on opensource. And I wouldn't even google Russia, China, or other less democratic states. Regulated is probably worse than some ana…

> I don't see how regulated entity is better in any way than individual.

I feel you. Regulatory bodies have definitely fallen short in many cases, and we've seen concerning proposals from governments that threaten digital privacy and freedom. "Who watches the watchmen" seems incredibly apt nowadays.

However, I feel there's a fundamental difference between imperfect accountability and no accountability at all. With a legal entity governed by stated policies, users have:

1. Transparency about who makes decisions and how

2. Clear terms that create binding commitments

3. Legal mechanisms for recourse if those commitments are violated

4. A persistent entity that can't simply disappear overnight

Perfect? Not really. The ICO in the UK, for example, hasn't been amazing at enforcing data protection. But the existence of these frameworks means that accountability is at least possible - there are levers that can be pulled if someone can be bothered to.

In contrast, with software maintained by anonymous or loosely affiliated individuals, there's no structural accountability whatsoever. If privacy promises are broken, users have no recourse beyond abandoning the software.

FOSS and auditability are valuable safeguards, sure, but they primarily protect against unintentional privacy violations that might be discovered in code reviews. They don't address the human element of intentional policy changes or decisions about data collection.

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

#577

Post by aembleton »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #544
MathMonkeyMan wrote: post #526

Earlier 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…

Would cdn-debian.org be allowed? Its on a different domain, but I've noticed a lot of websites use a different domain to host their CDN.

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

#578

Post by zihotki »

distortedsignal wrote: post #325
simpaticoder wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Let's dissect what it actually says I don't believe that dissection is a good way to understand the implications of this clause. >When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox. Rather than go over this word-by-w…

> what limits exactly does this place on Mozilla? Mozilla is bound to only use the content to help the use navigate, experience and interact with online content as the user has indicated. > One thing they could do with your financial data is show it to you (least harm). Yes - this is what the user indicated. > Another thing is to aggregate it with other's data (medium harm). And the user has not indicated that this w…

What is the definition of "help"? Is it showing ads to help you discover the products or services?

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

#579

Post by 1cecreamface »

_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…

I'll keep using firefox simply because I keep it behind a proxy server with all pocket, mozilla, firefox and google domains blocked.

The larger impact I suspect this will have in my life, is that I'll increasingly turn to not using websites, opting instead to using tools like yt-dlp.

These changes didn't just happen because of a bunch of greedy ad pushers. This and many other changes over the last few decades came about by taking my tax money and pouring it into these companies to gain compliance to state agendas. This isn't something the 'community' will be able to stave off.

If the internet is just going to become another medium like TV, Radio and newspapers were for so many years, adding on top the ability of the producers to watch me watching them, then it's over. The tech community is full of intellectual dishonest sellouts. Game over. Let's push letsencrypt again in response to the state backdooring the certificate authorities, duuurrr. "AI", duurrrr.

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

#580

Post by aembleton »

baobun wrote: post #477

Been using Firefox as main browser since it was called Mozilla. It's the only desktop application I've consistently installed on every desktop for that long. This is the end of that era and ends the streak. It's as frustrating as it's sad.

What are you replacing it with?
Post reply on HN