619
Mozilla is already revising its new Firefox terms to clarify how it handles user data
(www.theverge.com)
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
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"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?
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.
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.
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"
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?
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
some people consider indirect, cryptic answers to be complete
Really? I would think most would consider them for what they are: evasive and probably deceptive
vague to be exact, keeping it vague, so its up for interpretation on thier part, and they can use the vagueness as an excuse.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
That's good and I'm genuinely glad they're trying to clarify it, but it proves yet again that their top management is out of touch with reality and their users: somebody (most likely more than one person actually) had to sign off on these changes and the message they sent out - this whole thing could have been avoided if they understood their users better (and/or if they actually cared nore about what users think).
load more comments
(1 replies)
Mozilla says that “there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners” so that Firefox can be “commercially viable,” but it adds that it spells those out in its privacy notice and works to strip data of potentially identifying information or share it in aggregate.
Sounds like they've already been selling (or trading) data and this whole debacle is a way to retroactively cover their asses.
Yeah. And their privacy notice is basically a mix-match of ten or so sections that have no place in a web browser privacy policy, that allows them to do the things people reproach them for doing.
It's like saying "we're not doing that, because we're limited by that document that allows us to do just that". And now they're tripling down on it.
google is probably thier number one customer for the data.
Ruh roh. Too late though.
Friendship ended with Firefox,❎ Librewolf is my new best friend. ✅
Friendship ended with Firefox,❎ Librewolf is my new best friend. ✅
A big problem with such forks (same with packages made by Linux distributors) is that there is a delay between official FF release and the release of the corresponding update of the fork. 99% of the time this doesn't matter much but when there is a severe security issue, the patch needs to be available ASAP.
Past enshittifications of Firefox could be disabled by users. Users who know what to disable don't need such forks then.
I'm not yet clear what Mozilla even intends. Is it just an adjustment of language of things that are already in FF and can be disabled easily? If so, I just keep the following shit disabled and benefit from earlier update releases.
The issue is that Mozilla is actively hiding these settings. There's one (I forgot which one) that you can't find by searching for the title in the FF settings, you have to scroll to it yourself.
The issue is that Mozilla is actively hiding these settings.
They are under "Privacy", just as I expected where they would.
There’s one (I forgot which one) that you can’t find by searching for the title in the FF settings, you have to scroll to it yourself.
🤷
Yes, you can disable the settings that are exposed to you with a checkbox. How about all the other that have no checkboxes and you can find by snooping around in either the code or about:config ?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Dude, I'm not talking about the specific settings you've shown. There's more settings you should set regarding privacy, and (at least a couple of months ago) one of them wasn't appearing when searching for it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
I've already moved most of my stuff to forks or different software altogether.
Firefox -> LibreWolf and Waterfox
Thunderbird -> Evolution
I'm still trying to decide if I want to move off k9mail on mobile to something else. I probably will but I'm not sure what at this point.
I thought Thunderbird was a separate entitiy from Mozilla these days? And K-9 isn't owned by Thunderbird either? Am I mistaken?
My understanding is that they are all under Mozilla and they're all in danger of the same business decisions.
If that's not the case I'd be more than happy if someone could prove me wrong.
Technically Firefox is operated by the Mozilla Foundation, and thunderbird by its subsidiary, MZLA Technologies Corp. This subsidiary also took over K-9 a while ago iirc.
load more comments
(1 replies)
They have no business collecting any data in the first place. If I wanted my data collected I'd be using Chrome like everyone else. I'm not choosing to use their buggy ass inferior and slower browser for any of Mozilla's services, I'm choosing it because I want to support non-Chromium browsers and regain my privacy.
There's no point whatsoever to using Firefox if it's just a worse Chrome.
load more comments
(15 replies)
Great, but a web browser still does not need terms of service. There's no ongoing relationship between the user and the creator of the browser, at least, there shouldn't be unless the user signs up for additional optional services.
It's great if Mozilla wants to offer some optional services users can opt in to, and those services probably need terms. I use Firefox Sync, though I've started to reconsider that given the recent fuss. The browser itself? I'll move to a fork first, and stop recommending Firefox to others.
Pornhub now remembers what sort of porn you like while browsing incognito. Is this also happening with other browsers? I just don't wanna have my wife know what kid of bdsm I really like. It keeps things fun that way. Fun, gun, hun, nun, are all too close on the keyboard. Autocorrect can't fix that.
Pornhub now remembers what sort of porn you like while browsing incognito.
Are you sure? All incognito windows run in the same memory space. If you open one window and do something in it, that session data is available to any other open incognito window open. To clear this ALL incognito windows need to be closed. Once they are all closed, you should be able to open a single new one and have no remnants of the previous sessions left over for the website to know you. The exceptions to this are if they are tracking activity from your IP address or if they are using Browser Fingerprinting on your session so they know even if you come from a different IP they know its your computer.
I run into the IP tracking sometimes. The wife will be doing searches for some specific thing, and I'll see youtube recommendations show up on those topics even though I'm running youtube via incognito on completely different hardware (but we're both using the same public IP).
load more comments
(3 replies)
yet you missed the elephant in the room.
kid
cool, sounds good. (the Community gif where Troy walks into the room with Pizza, Pierce has been shot, and there's fire everywhere)
Whats the alternative on android?
Waterfox if you are ok with getting it from the play store
load more comments
(1 replies)