AI Summary:

Overview:

  • Mozilla is updating its new Terms of Use for Firefox due to criticism over unclear language about user data.
  • Original terms seemed to give Mozilla broad ownership of user data, causing concern.
  • Updated terms emphasize limited scope of data interaction, stating Mozilla only needs rights necessary to operate Firefox.
  • Mozilla acknowledges confusion and aims to clarify their intent to make Firefox work without owning user content.
  • Company explains they don’t make blanket claims of “never selling data” due to evolving legal definitions and obligations.
  • Mozilla collects and shares some data with partners to keep Firefox commercially viable, but ensures data is anonymized or shared in aggregate.
You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
194 points

permalink
report
reply
71 points

“I am doing things that are not selling your data which some people consider to be selling your data”

Why is he so cryptic? Neil, why don’t you tell me what those things are and let me be the judge?

permalink
report
parent
reply
66 points

Louis Rossmann had a good video about this. Basically, California passed a law that changed what “selling your data” means, and it goes way beyond what I consider “selling your data.” There’s an argument here than Mozilla is largely just trying to comply with the law. Whether that’s accurate remains to be seen though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Then how about putting that in the language? “We don’t sell your data, except if you’re in California, because they consider x, y and z things we might actually do as selling data.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

Some jurisdictions classify “sale” as broadly as “transfer of data to any other company, for a ‘benefit’ of any kind” Benefit could even be non-monetary in terms of money being transferred for the data, it could be something as broadly as “the browser generally improving using that data and thus being more likely to generate revenue.”

To avoid frivolous lawsuits, Mozilla had to update their terms to clarify this in order to keep up with newer laws.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

I think this is a reasonable explanation.

But I also believe a large part of the firefox user base does not want any data about them collected by their browser, no matter if it is for commercial purposes or simply analytics / telemetry. Which is why the original statement “we will never sell any of your data” was just good enough for them, and anything mozilla is now saying is basically not good enough, no matter how much they clarify it to mean “not selling in the colloquial sense”

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I agree, I don’t want my browser provider to collect any data on me at all, but if they absolutely must gather the absolute minimum system analytics stats or such they should NEVER pass it to a third party for ANY reason.

You make a desktop browser application, that’s your job, to provide a portal to the world wide web, nothing more. Stay within your bounds and we’ll never have any problem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I mean…if they pay for the service of external analization of data in exchange of money, how is that a sale of goods/data?

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

I’m pretty sure this person is making a joke using a fake exaggerated “answer” from a corporation to highlight the absurdity of their double speak. I doubt something this insane would come from an actual spokesperson.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I’m getting that now too. I don’t know the players in Mozilla. The quote without context made me think this was one of those Mozilla execs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

“ChatGPT, I need your help. Please pretend to be a lawyer that recently suffered a severe concussion and write me something I can post online that will male this situation slightly weirder.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Neil doesn’t need a chatbot with sparkles for that, he’s plenty capable to take absolute piss himself. 😁

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

some people consider indirect, cryptic answers to be complete

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Really? I would think most would consider them for what they are: evasive and probably deceptive

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Oh, it’s perfectly clear. We got the message. Mozilla are not to be trusted with our data.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Reread it, double negative.

Edit: oops, sorry. Removed this myself for being wrong.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 20K

    Monthly active users

  • 14K

    Posts

  • 615K

    Comments