New Firefox Terms "does NOT give us ownership of your data" : firefox

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I feel for Ashley here. She likely had no say in the matter and is being tasked to defend this change.

There is only one way to fix this short term which is to roll back the TOS.

Long term would be to guarantee to keep the MPL as the governing license for both the source code and executable.

Acceptable solution would be severely limit the license users would have to give to Mozilla, both time bound and use bound.

you hereby grant us a ~~nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide~~ limited, royalty-free license, used for the duration explicitly necessary to allow Firefox ~~to use that information to help you~~ navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate ~~with your use of Firefox~~, not to exceed execution duration of the browser, or one day, whichever is shorter.

But again, absolutely no license should be necessary. The browser is not a legal entity and I should not need to give Mozilla a license for my data.

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 1 points 1 hour ago

The ToS hasn't gone into effect yet, so it would be postponing rather than rolling back. One thing that hasn't been answered yet, though, is why this change is needed now - possibly, there's a legal reason why postponing isn't an option?

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 62 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

We. Don't. Want. AI.

Great, what other good Gecko Engine Browsers are there?

[–] HouseWolf@lemm.ee 17 points 11 hours ago

Waterfox is the safe bet, it's basically just regular Firefox repacked with better defaults and telemetry turned off, but it isn't harden or has add-ons included.

LibreWolf is what I switched to over a year ago, The team behind it have been pretty thorough in scraping out spyware and it comes pre-hardened out the box (but that can break more invasive websites).

[–] simple@lemm.ee 11 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

They're opt-in by default, it's not like they're forcing AI on you.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Even the mere existence of AI which usage is opt-in is a so called slippery slope.

[–] simple@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

Not really. Other companies forced AI to appeal to investors and look for new ways to trap consumers in subscriptions. Mozilla added free, privacy-friendly addons because people asked for it. Big difference.

[–] Creat@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

... yet

[–] TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works 10 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

idk why people are downvoting, it's exactly what has happened with literally every bad policy online anywhere. They beta test it to gauge how bad backlash would be, then if it's acceptable go ahead with it, if too much backlash just use the "oh it was just a beta! we would never do that 🥺" excuse then in 6 months try again

[–] simple@lemm.ee 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Because they said multiple times they don't plan on making it a default. From the very beginning Mozilla announced their AI extensions will not be forced on people. I don't understand the "but what if they do" comments. "What if elon musk bought firefox?!??! It could happen!"

[–] Creat@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 17 minutes ago

Also said "we will never share your data" and now they've removed that from the terms. I assume you're aware that they just had a change in leadership? These decisions come from whichever is in charge. New leadership might still agree enough with it to not change it, but what about the person after, or the one after that? As they say "never is a very long time".

I'm also not saying it will definitely happen, but my confidence in it not happening is now low enough that I switched to LibreWolf.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 7 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

zen, i guess

[–] astro_ray@piefed.social 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Zen is not another browser, it is just reskinned firefox with some tweaks.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 4 points 9 hours ago

Well that's kind of all any gecko based browser can ever be. The way gecko's written, it's a lot more locked into the rest of firefox than Chromium's web engine

[–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Too recent to trust, I feel like. Have you been using it? What do you make of it?

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 2 points 12 hours ago

i haven't. i use hardened firefox

[–] Captainautism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Orion

[–] astro_ray@piefed.social 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Last I checked it was webkit based, did they change it?

[–] Captainautism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 hours ago

Hmm, not that I know of.

[–] tiramichu@lemm.ee 18 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

"It does NOT give us ownership of your data"

Then why did it say that it does?

"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."

If we insist on having terms at all, then GOOD and user-respecting terms are ones which list clearly, precisely and exhaustively exactly what data will be used for what purpose under what circumstance.

BAD and corporate-favouring terms are ones which make broad, sweeping statements which can be interpreted any way the company likes in their favour - and where changes to how and what data is shared and transmitted can be made any time without updating the terms, because the terms are so broad they cover just about anything.

Pretty clear which one of those things the new terms are.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago

This is exactly why I don't believe a single word they say about this new TOS.

Their MPL2 was perfectly fine. Moving their executable to a proprietary license with less freedoms was not going to go well.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago (6 children)

Uhh, because without letting Firefox use the information you type, you would have a very shitty word processor instead of a web browser?

Imaging typing "www.google.com" and Firefox just sits there because without your permission to use the data you gave it, Firefox would ethically not be able send that text to a DNS server.

That's what that means.

[–] threesigma@lemm.ee 8 points 10 hours ago

Hmmm. How about no other program has ever required this? A program is not the company. I do not need to give away my right to my data to use a telephone or send a postcard.

[–] Lats@aus.social 7 points 10 hours ago

@billiam0202 in this age of data pillaging to fuel AI models and target ads, people rightfully assume the worst. If that’s Firefox’s intention then better wording is required.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

You need to understand that what you wrote is utter bullshit and not how any of this works, or has ever worked.

Mozilla is not the software running on your computer and you having some sort of agreement with them is not even slightly required for the software running locally to connect to the third-party server that you, the user, directed it to connect to.

Adding Mozilla ToS to Firefox is like putting "vegan" labels on tomatoes: it's not just pointless, but also suspicious.

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 1 points 1 hour ago

It's suspicious, because you think those tomatoes have dairy or meat in them?

[–] tiramichu@lemm.ee 12 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

When you interact with your web browser as an application, the information you put into it - including any DNS queries or submitted data - is routed between your ISP, your DNS provider, and the provider of the website. And for non-mozilla websites then none of those are Mozilla.

"Firefox" as a browser sees that stuff, but "Mozilla" as an organisation, a busineas entity, does not need to see that.

Exactly the same that when you buy a bicycle you can ride it anywhere you like without the company who made the bike knowing where you are - sure they made the bike, but after that point, the relationship is over.

This is why historically there has not been any need to accept terms for a browser, because a browser is just a vehicle - what you use the browser for has actually no dependency with the company who made it.

A policy only starts to become necessary when the browser positions itself as an entity that you transact with directly; like creating an account to sync data with Mozilla services and store things in pocket, or to interact with AI services which Mozilla provides.

Effectively, mozilla have now started adding extra features to the bicycle which are useful but also need to communicate with Bike HQ to work. And they are being a little less than specific about what data that is or what they will do with it.

That's what data usage policies are about - what data does Mozilla as an organisation collect, what do they use it for, and what third parties do they interact with to provide those services. And that's what I'd hope to see, rather than a broad statement that in theory allows anything.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

That's the thing: you do interact with the web browser. It's literally the first thing that has to happen before accessing the Internet.

You don't type directly into Facebook; you don't search Google directly. You type into a text box in web page rendered by your browser. Your browser handles the HTTPS encryption as well as sending everything you type to the next layer in the network stack. That's what Mozilla's policy is clarifying- the very act of typing data into Firefox means you're giving data to Firefox, so they're telling you what happens to that data when you do (which is not "send it to Mozilla").

[–] tiramichu@lemm.ee 4 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

That's what Mozilla's response to the recent criticism tried to explain this as being, but that response itself is to me not at all plausible.

You do not need to give Firefox or Mozilla permission to "do" anything when you simply navigate to a website or perform a search, because the only entities involved in that transaction are yourself, your ISP and the website. NOT Mozilla.

To be super clear here: Yes, Firefox as an installed application has complete and total access and permission on anything you ever do or say or send, and always has done since day 1. And that is absolutely fine, because that data did not go back to Mozilla.

That's how its been with web browsers since the web browser was invented - you don't have to agree to let the browser do things for you, because just like a bike you are the one driving the browser and deciding where it goes and what requests the broswer makes when you drive it - you are in control.

The new terms and conditions have been added to cover data which is sent back from the browser to Mozilla, or to other partner services.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] rimu@piefed.social 11 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Seems weird. Should the linux kernel be getting my permission to send what I type from the keyboard to Firefox? What about when the kernel sends what firefox does through my wifi card? It gets silly real quick.

[–] kobra@lemm.ee 8 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

It gets silly real quick.

is this your first interaction with lawyers?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Seems weird. Should the linux kernel be getting my permission to send what I type from the keyboard to Firefox? What about when the kernel sends what firefox does through my wifi card? It gets silly real quick.

Should they not? Do you want everything you type on your computer, even stuff that's not meant to be seen publicly, to be sent somewhere without your knowledge?

A few months ago everyone was in an uproar because Microsoft wanted to do that very thing with Windows Recall. Why is that idea preposterous just because Firefox is telling you about it?

[–] gratux@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Should that license then also clarify that the kernel will not clean my dishes for me?

Not having some feature/behaviour doesn't need a license. A license, a form of contract, is only necessary when two or more parties interact. I interact with Mozilla when I download and install Firefox, so I have to conform to some distribution license for example. Maybe they restrict me from redistributing the binary they provide me (made-up example). But after that, I no longer interact with Mozilla, so anything I do with Firefox should not require a license.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Should that license then also clarify that the kernel will not clean my dishes for me?

Of course it should. It should also clarify that you'll only get a blowjob on your birthday and you'll have to do your own taxes, you deeply unserious person. 🙄

[–] fakeplastic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

So for the last 20 plus years before this new wording, Firefox has not been a functional browser?

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

That's not what I said. But making a policy explicit rather than implicit seems to me like a good move for privacy. Isn't it better to know exactly what Firefox is doing with what you type, rather than just assuming?

[–] fakeplastic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

If they make it more exact such that it's not ambiguous whether they can use our data for whatever, that would be fine.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I agree, and so does Mozilla. From the linked blog post:

Regarding our position around licensing, we need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn’t use the words you type into Firefox to perform your searches, for example. It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice. We’ve added this note to our blog to clarify, so thank you for your feedback.

Here's the Privacy Notice referenced above. While I agree with you that they are vague about their "Partners, service providers, suppliers and contractors" they supply data to (read: Google) they do provide ways for you to request that data.

[–] gratux@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Does Notepad need a license to interpret your keystrokes and save them to a file? Interpreting my keystrokes and formatting them as an HTTP request to the search engine should not require any online service, and if the data does not leave my machine, it doesn't need a license nor privacy policy. They have done just fine without a license for decades, because it would be absurd to require a license for fully local operations.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Does Notepad need a license to interpret your keystrokes and save them to a file?

Oh look at that, a privacy policy in Notepad that tells you how Microsoft uses the data you type into Notepad.

Interpreting my keystrokes and formatting them as an HTTP request to the search engine should not require any online service

It doesn't. The policy covers what happens after that. Sure, open up Firefox and type whatever you want in the address bar and you can be as private as you want. The second you press Enter is when Firefox does stuff with what you typed, and Mozilla is saying that when you push Enter you give them permission to do that stuff. You're giving Mozilla permission to send your search to Google for midget porn, or to post your pro-Trump rant to Facebook, or email your great-Grandma's secret oatmeal raisin cookie recipe to your ex-wife.

It's turning an implicit use of a web browser ("Of course we're sending your search to Google and nowhere else wink") into an explicit use ("When you provide data to Firefox, we're gonna do this with it, cool?")

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

It’s turning an implicit use of a web browser (“Of course we’re sending your search to Google and nowhere else wink”) into an explicit use (“When you provide data to Firefox, we’re gonna do this with it, cool?”)

Except the terms don't promise that. The terms don't really say anything at all about what Mozilla (the corporation) or Firefox (the software) won't do with data I enter into Firefox. They do however say that I grant Mozilla a license to use data that I enter into Firefox for several purposes, which means Firefox could reasonably send the search request I intended for Google to Mozilla as well.

[–] gratux@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 10 hours ago

Oh look at that, a privacy policy in Notepad that tells you how Microsoft uses the data you type into Notepad.

I admit, not the best example. I was implicitly referring to Notepad from Windows 10 and earlier, which didn't have any online functionality yet, and thus would be excluded from large amounts of the license terms. The linked License Terms and Privacy Policy are written to apply to any and all Software from Microsoft.

In order to make our interpretation efforts easier, let's use a non-Microsoft example, Notepad++: During the installation, you are presented with the GNU GPLv3 license, which pertains only to the distribution of the (parts of the) program. Even after the installation, the only mention of a license is the GNU GPLv3. There is no Notepad++ Usage License or Privacy Policy, because there is no other party i interact with.

If I use cURL to send a request to Google, cURL doesn't need a license to pinky-promise it actually does what I tell it to do. cURL is not a party, it is a tool. I do need a license for Google, because they process, store and use my provided information beyond the search itself.

You’re giving Mozilla permission to send your search to Google for midget porn, or to post your pro-Trump rant to Facebook, or email your great-Grandma’s secret oatmeal raisin cookie recipe to your ex-wife.

You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet.

The web request is sent by Firefox, not Mozilla. Mozilla is not acting on my behalf when issuing a web request. One might argue Firefox is, but that is no different from the Linux kernel acting on its behalf to issue that request to the Ethernet card, and the cards firmware to act on the kernels behalf to do what it says. None of these parts have license terms that restrict, let alone mention these processes.

There is no reason why Firefox needs these license terms to operate.

[–] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 8 points 12 hours ago

K. In that case, explicitly guarantee it in your terms and conditions.

[–] Gloria@sh.itjust.works 4 points 12 hours ago

[–] heavydust@sh.itjust.works 3 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

It’s clear now that they don’t care, and they will use whatever we type to train their AI.

That’s the end of Firefox for me, it’s disgusting that they don’t care about privacy anymore.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Thank god for forks

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

What are some of the forks?

[–] helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Well you got the cheese fork, oyster fork, crab fork, spaghetti fork, dessert fork, Neptune's fork, carving fork, fish fork, table fork and the fork in the road that leads you to Librewolf, waterfox, pale moon, I just learned about Floorp today. I haven't switched desktop yet, (this weekend project), but I switched my phone over to Ironfox and so far its all good.

[–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 5 points 12 hours ago

+1 for Waterfox! Water beats fire.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] jupiter2643@lemmy.ml 2 points 13 hours ago

How are y'all feeling about icecat?