@[email protected] @ponda @[email protected] We also wanted to additionally clarify that we won't be adopting the Firefox Terms of Use for Thunderbird, either on desktop or on mobile.
Thought this was interesting and worth knowing about
$6M, but if you look at the California law that spurred this change, the Privacy Policy that hasn’t changed since July 2024, and the revised ToS, this looks mostly like a really, really, really stupid communication error.
It’s one of those cases where legally, “sell” includes things that most people wouldn’t consider a sale in normal parlance, but Mozilla has to comply with the overbroad legal definition; meanwhile, they don’t appear to be fundamentally changing anything about how they’re operating.
ETA: I’m still moving to LibreWolf (and maybe Ladybird later on). I’m not a lawyer, and expecting people like me to parse legal definitions of commonly understood words is just asinine.
legally,“sell” includes things that most people wouldn’t consider a sale in normal parlance
Like what, any specific examples?
I have been hearing this repeatedly as a talking point from people defending Firefox but without any specific example of what they do and don’t allow themselves to take and sell, it rings quite hollow.
The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because, in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”
If they give anybody any information for any reason, they open themselves to litigation - however frivolous and unwarranted - because the laws are written to be intentionally vague, to capture a wide variety of scenarios, including those that the law does not explicitly state. There are tons of valuable exchanges that could occur other than strictly data for money, and those exchanges are therefore captured within this new legal definition. To protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits and to remain consistent within the new definitions of these laws, Firefox/Mozilla has changed their Terms of Use. Their uses of data are outlined within their Privacy Policy (linked within the above post).
I suppose this information is only valuable if one trusts Mozilla - one of the most stalwart, dedicated, and outspoken advocates for consumer rights in the digital age.
I’m not saying Mozilla is infallible or above reproach - nobody/nothing is or should be considered so - but if I’m gonna trust any group that says “I’m not fucking you over” it’s gonna be the group that has a consistent and very clear history of championing the idea of not fucking people over
To quote this wiki that did a very good job of breaking down this clusterfuck:
The CCPA defines “selling data” as:
“Sell,” “selling,” “sale,” or “sold,” means selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by the business to a third party for monetary or other valuable consideration.
The sticking point is that last “other valuable consideration.” The question that people should be asking is: “valuable to whom and in what capacity?” Value does not need to be for financial gain; knowledge is valuable to a contractor building a building, for example.
But I recommend reading that wiki breakdown or just watch this video. It’s a mess that can’t be untangled in a simple Lemmy comment.
From what I understand, usage stats are anonymized, and you can opt out of telemetry. But as I personally move to more hardened and private ways to connect, I’m moving to LibreWolf to err on the side of caution.
It all feels like flying too close to the sun for my taste. I don’t like the idea of normalizing policies that aren’t cut and dry and easy to understand. Have a legal version and a version for dumb people like me if needed, but don’t expect me to play lawyer and connect the dots.
Who is the moron at Mozilla that thought it would be a good idea to sell user information, and how much does he make a year?
$6M, but if you look at the California law that spurred this change, the Privacy Policy that hasn’t changed since July 2024, and the revised ToS, this looks mostly like a really, really, really stupid communication error.
It’s one of those cases where legally, “sell” includes things that most people wouldn’t consider a sale in normal parlance, but Mozilla has to comply with the overbroad legal definition; meanwhile, they don’t appear to be fundamentally changing anything about how they’re operating.
ETA: I’m still moving to LibreWolf (and maybe Ladybird later on). I’m not a lawyer, and expecting people like me to parse legal definitions of commonly understood words is just asinine.
Like what, any specific examples?
I have been hearing this repeatedly as a talking point from people defending Firefox but without any specific example of what they do and don’t allow themselves to take and sell, it rings quite hollow.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
If they give anybody any information for any reason, they open themselves to litigation - however frivolous and unwarranted - because the laws are written to be intentionally vague, to capture a wide variety of scenarios, including those that the law does not explicitly state. There are tons of valuable exchanges that could occur other than strictly data for money, and those exchanges are therefore captured within this new legal definition. To protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits and to remain consistent within the new definitions of these laws, Firefox/Mozilla has changed their Terms of Use. Their uses of data are outlined within their Privacy Policy (linked within the above post).
I suppose this information is only valuable if one trusts Mozilla - one of the most stalwart, dedicated, and outspoken advocates for consumer rights in the digital age.
I’m not saying Mozilla is infallible or above reproach - nobody/nothing is or should be considered so - but if I’m gonna trust any group that says “I’m not fucking you over” it’s gonna be the group that has a consistent and very clear history of championing the idea of not fucking people over
Allowing access for valuable consideration is pretty cut and dry. What is the legislation defining beyond that?
To quote this wiki that did a very good job of breaking down this clusterfuck:
The sticking point is that last “other valuable consideration.” The question that people should be asking is: “valuable to whom and in what capacity?” Value does not need to be for financial gain; knowledge is valuable to a contractor building a building, for example.
But I recommend reading that wiki breakdown or just watch this video. It’s a mess that can’t be untangled in a simple Lemmy comment.
I don’t want Mozilla to be handling my personal data in any way. Anonymized usage statistics? I could be convinced to relinquish that. But that’s it.
From what I understand, usage stats are anonymized, and you can opt out of telemetry. But as I personally move to more hardened and private ways to connect, I’m moving to LibreWolf to err on the side of caution.
It all feels like flying too close to the sun for my taste. I don’t like the idea of normalizing policies that aren’t cut and dry and easy to understand. Have a legal version and a version for dumb people like me if needed, but don’t expect me to play lawyer and connect the dots.