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

771–780 of 1001 posts

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

#771

Post by lallysingh »

_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 look for somewhere else. Web browsers aren't as special as they used to be, there's a lot more choice now. Funny thing was, I was paying for Firefox through some of their services (VPN) that I had no intent to use.

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

#772

Post by karaterobot »

ta1243 wrote: post #689
KingOfCoders wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They got more than $7B to build a browser. "I appreciate the constant existential wobble Firefox faces" I would also love to face $7B existential wobbles.

To put that number in perspective, drawing just 1% of that down each year and putting in a bank account earning interest would fund 100 engineers on $500k/year indefinitely.

I get what you're saying, but the reality is that it takes more than engineers to run a browser company. You'd have to find 100 engineers who can double as lawyers, designers, project managers, etc., and handle payroll, and HR, and after those 100 engineers end up doing the job of 300 other people, how much code are they writing? Your point about them appearing to waste money is taken, I'm just pointing out that it's not quite as bald-faced as that.

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

#773

Post by itsoktocry »

dtech wrote: post #741
ta1243 wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put that number in perspective, drawing just 1% of that down each year and putting in a bank account earning interest would fund 100 engineers on $500k/year indefinitely.

They got it over many years with ongoing expenses because they had a browser, so comparing it with 7B lump sum is silly. With the same argument you could probably retire, after all you already earned (years you've been working) * (average salary).

>so comparing it with 7B lump sum is silly.

It's not that silly, because that's a huge amount of money. What do you think the gross expense of building software like this should be? Because this may be the end of the line.

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

#774

Post by throw10920 »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #659
sph wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's my question: in light of what Mozilla is doing, why don't other forks like Waterfox or Librewolf write a manifesto/contract saying they'll never sell your user data and won't turn "evil" (until they do, of course), and then decide to offer a paid version of their browser. Two possible outcomes: 1. No one cares. No one pays for it. Nothing changes and nobody loses anything. 2. Enough people pay for it to keep t…

The problem with paid versions, is that I don't really trust them either. MBA creep will happen and suddenly the TOS changes and my paid tier is going to have data collection and 'some' ads. I have to move to a high tier to avoid them. After a few cycles of that, one day all the tiers have data collection and ads.

You have to trust and/or monitor and apply active pressure to (something that virtually nobody does) the developers to some extent either way. The difference with a paid distribution is that there's at least some revenue that helps keep the project afloat, and with a free distribution there's not.

e.g. if you have a CEO/lead developer that's initially acting responsibly, but has a "bankruptcy threshold" beyond which they'll start selling your data, a revenue stream will stave that point off.

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

#775

Post by ac130kz »

Propelloni wrote: post #485
ac130kz wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They made too many decisions on their own to be a 1:1 replacement. I think there needs to be a new fork, which would just remove all of the spyware bits.

If you think Librewolf is too opinionated, try Waterfox [1] [1] https://github.com/BrowserWorks/Waterfox

Waterfox seemed a bit too opinionated as well, especially in terms of extra code, weird versioning, patch delays.

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

#776

Post by lolinder »

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…

Rather odd policy choices is an understatement.

The context to keep in mind here is that Mozilla purchased an ad company back in June. They spent money on it, and they will move to earn a return on investment.

Absent that context this could just be another tone deaf policy choice that gets rolled back when there's enough heat, but with that context in mind it's far more likely to be them laying the legal foundation to incorporate Anonym's targeted advertising into Firefox.

From the Register article about the acquisition:

> Arielle Garcia, director of intelligence for ad watchdog Check My Ads, told The Register in an email that she's generally skeptical of claims about privacy-preserving ad technology.

> "For example, how do Anonym’s audience capabilities, like their lookalike modeling, jibe with what Mozilla considers to be 'exploitative models of data extraction?' The data that is 'securely shared' by platforms and advertisers to enable ad targeting and measurement have to come from somewhere – and there’s more to privacy than not leaking user IDs."

https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/18/mozilla_buys_anonym_b...

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

#777

Post by nickthegreek »

amiga386 wrote: post #655
thorw93040494 wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> is easy to block network access (never plug ethernet) Some TVs secretly include a modem and SIM card, to make sure they get your personal data back to their masters. Every company in the world is coming after your privacy. How far are you willing to defend it?

Give us a single make/model that does this.

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

#778

Post by bluGill »

rich_sasha wrote: post #473
drusepth wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would wager most people that offer to buy software "one off" typically underestimate their lifetime worth earned through other means like ads and data sales. Would you pay a one-time $10 for a lifetime Firefox license? $100? $1,000? $10,000?

Without thinking much about it, $60 / yr seems reasonable to me. I never click on any ads, so while I'm sure I contribute to Firefox's revenue as another pair of eyeballs, I don't deliver any end value to their ad-biz end customers.

> I never click on any ads [snip] I don't deliver any end value to their ad-biz end customers

This is a complete misunderstanding of the value of ads. Clicks are of course the most valuable signal, but any ad seen is valuable. If clicks were all that mattered TV would never had ads, nor would newspapers.

Many ads are about awareness not buy now. Ford/Toyota... doesn't expect you to buy a car the day/week you see an ad, they just want you to think of them when you buy a car. They also want to slowly drive discomfort with whatever car you already drive so that eventually you do buy a new one despite having on that works. (or if you don't have a car they want to be sure you are reminded how much freedom to go places you are giving up - without concern for the costs of having a car)

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

#779

Post by dk1138 »

nico42 wrote: post #437

To Mozilla: if your intentions are indeed good as you claim in your post[1], then update the ToS accordingly. Chrome is removing µBlock origin, I and probably a lot of other users saw this as a good moment to promote Firefox to our relatives, you are missing a chance and alienating your user base here. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/fi...

Or they are taking the gamble that being able to continue to use µBlock outweighs the sale of customer data.

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

#780

Post by pmontra »

Digit-Al wrote: post #446
pmontra wrote: post #400

> 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 pro…

I have seen discussions of this sort of wording so many times over the years. My understanding is as follows (and I could be wrong, but this is my understanding of why that wording is used). If you use Firefox to upload a file to a website then, legally speaking,the browser is acting as a "publisher"of that file. Because of Draconian laws in many countries, to publish a file you have to have a legal right to the file…

> the browser is acting as a "publisher"of that file

If that's all is required to be a publisher then ftp, scp, rsync and hundreds of similar tools are also publishers of the files they transfer. However they don't have Terms of Service like the one Mozilla is giving to Firefox.

Post reply on HN