this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
619 points (97.3% liked)

Technology

63614 readers
3056 users here now

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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 61 points 18 hours ago (6 children)

"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?

[–] PixelPinecone@lemmy.today 18 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

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.

[–] hansolo@lemm.ee 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

"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."

[–] dnzm@feddit.nl 4 points 1 hour ago

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

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 54 points 15 hours ago

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.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 23 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

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.

[–] obinice@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

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.

[–] mle86@feddit.org 20 points 14 hours ago

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"

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 12 points 14 hours ago

Ask the lawmakers who wrote the laws with vague language, because according to them, that kind of activity could be considered a sale.

As a more specific example that is more one-sided, but still not technically a "sale," Mozilla has sponsored links on the New Tab page. (they can be disabled of course)

These links are provided by a third-party, relatively privacy protecting ad marketplace. Your browser downloads a list of links from them if you have sponsored links turned on, and no data is actually sent to their service about you. If you click a sponsored link, a request is sent using a protocol that anonymizes your identity, that tells them the link was clicked. That's it, no other data about your identity, browser, etc.

This generates revenue for Mozilla that isn't reliant on Google's subsidies, that doesn't actually sell user data. Under these laws, that would be classified as a sale of user data, since Mozilla technically transferred data from your device (that you clicked the sponsored link) for a benefit. (financial compensation)

However, I doubt anyone would call that feature "selling user data." But, because the law could do so, they have to clarify that in their terms, otherwise someone could sue them saying "you sold my data" when all they did was send a small packet to a server saying that some user, somewhere clicked the sponsored link.

[–] xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

some people consider indirect, cryptic answers to be complete

[–] zonnewin@feddit.nl 1 points 19 minutes ago

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

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 8 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 1 points 13 hours ago

vague to be exact, keeping it vague, so its up for interpretation on thier part, and they can use the vagueness as an excuse.

[–] xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 18 hours ago

all sorts of people are super satisfied with answers that don’t answer the question….
people tell me that all the time….

[–] YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Reread it, double negative.

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