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.
    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      “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?

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days 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.

        • Don_alForno@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          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.”

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            Exactly!

            Hetzner kind of does this, where there’s a separate EULA for US customers that lays out precisely how they’re screwing you in that jurisdiction (e.g. forced arbitration). I’m not happy about that, but I appreciate having a separate, region-specific TOS.

            If some wording only applies in California, state that. Or if it’s due to similar laws elsewhere, then state that. And then detail which features collect data, why, what control you have, and how you can opt-out. Maybe have a separate mini-TOS/EULA for each major component that gets into details.

            But just saying “you give us a license to everything you do on Firefox” may appease their legal counsel, but it doesn’t appease many of their users, especially since they largely appeal to people who care about privacy.

            • monogram@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 days ago

              At this point I care about ownership of what I do on my browser, Chrome under these guidelines is a better alternative (and that’s a low bar)

                • monogram@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  It’s not it’s just slightly less bad than Firefox on the perspective of ownership,

                  E.g.: under the new guidelines by Mozilla you’re not allowed to bookmark pornhub

                  This is thanks to Mozilla’s focus on “privacy respecting “ advertisement and ai, go to any open source conference and you’ll see a list of ai talks by them.

                  ——

                  Don’t get me wrong I implore anyone to move to any browser that isn’t; Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Opera