8 ms·

Title is a complete lie/misleading. They get a license, not ownership. Let's dissect what it actually says, and we do it backwards, because given the discussio

Title is a complete lie/misleading. They get a license, not ownership. Let's dissect what it actually says, and we do it backwards, because given the discussion around this subject it seems like people space out or have their mind clouded by outrage before they get to the end of the sentence: > help you [do things] as you indicate with your use of Firefox. So this already only covers things that you indicate you want to do with your use of Firefox. Meaning that if you hit some button, Mozilla now has a license to process the data they need to make that button work and nothing more. That means unless you give them additional permission somewhere, they can't, for example, also store and process that information to train some AI model or whatever. All they're allowed to use it for is making whatever you interacted with work. Seems pretty reasonable. > to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content This further narrows the scope to websites and such you interact with (online content). It also says that license only covers "helping" you with these things. The part we looked at previously narrows this to your intent. > you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license So just a license. No transfer of ownership is happening. > When you upload or input information through Firefox Note that this says "through". They're clearly only trying to cover their butt as an intermediary by obtaining a license to process your information to act as such an intermediary. Explicitly nothing more. Putting it back together we get: > 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. Important part in cursive. So broadly what is the license for? > license [..] to help you [..] as you indicate

lopatin 2y ago
I still don't get it. Is Mozilla phoning home the fact that I pressed the button?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- chmod775 2y ago
  Short answer: No. Long answer: Unless the button says "phone home my information to Mozilla", this license wouldn't cover that. This license only covers whatever is necessary to make the button itself work - whatever is necessary to realize the user's intent.
  - inetknght 2y ago
    They didn't need a license to your data before. Why should they need it now?
    - ykonstant 2y ago
      Let me guess: chmod775 will not reply to this comment.
      - procaryote 2y ago
        It's an apt username for naively giving read access
      - chmod775 2y ago
        See my reply to you here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43205587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43205587 Honestly I'm surprised that a research technician is more interested in this style of "argument" rather than figuring out the meaning of a (very precisely worded) sentence to for its own sake.
    - handoflixue 2y ago
      From the link that was already provided, and which is repeated in their Privacy FAQ: "Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love." That seems like a pretty reasonable justification to me
      - inetknght 2y ago
        Nope. It seems like legalspeak to say "we sell your data" while making it sound like they don't.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  That'd be a matter for the privacy policy. The section in question is whether they can then go ahead and publish a list of all the buttons you pressed. Which according to this license grant they can, but only if it "helps you navigate, experience, [or] interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox". What does that mean? I have no clue. It's a really strange restriction and I can't decide if that's wide open or so narrow that it is basically never met
simpaticoder 2y ago
>Let's dissect what it actually says I don't believe that dissection is a good way to understand the implications of this clause. >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. Rather than go over this word-by-word, please tell me: what limits exactly does this place on Mozilla? What rights does it give to the user? One way to express such a limit is by construction, that is, construct hypothetical acts A, B, and C that would be allowed under these terms, but actions D, E, and F would not be allowed (and be a cause for action by a user). I assert that the first set includes literally anything you can imagine (modulo a sophists ability to morph "help you" into anything they want), and the second set is empty. To steel-man this concept, let us say that Mozilla wants to store and use your password to your bank to check your balance regularly. I assert that this action is allowed by there terms. Why? First, you used Firefox and therefore enabled the clause. Second, your authentication details are entered through Firefox, and this constitutes "input" or "upload", to which they assert ownership (which I will use as shorthand for a "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license"). One thing they could do with your financial data is show it to you (least harm). Another thing is to aggregate it with other's data (medium harm). Yet another application would be to pool it into a database to be sold to the highest bidder (maximum harm). In the latter case, you could make the argument that such a move "helps you" by giving Mozilla a reliable revenue stream that helps fund continued development of the browser. Needless to say, I am appalled and feel bad for all the many people I've told about Firefox over the years, described it as a bastion of fairness and privacy in an all too often sinister world. And now that they've assert these extraordinary rights over user data, I feel ashamed of my advocacy. I daresay that even if they rescind this incredible overreach, I will not come back. My trust has been broken and cannot be easily (if ever) repaired.
- chmod775 2y ago
  > First, you used Firefox and therefore enabled the clause. I believe your confusion stems from a misreading of "as you indicate with your use of Firefox". You're reading it like "by using Firefox, you indicate". Contemplate the difference between "The car is allowed to move as you indicate with the controls." versus "By using the controls, you indicate the car is allowed to move." The former explicitly only allows the car to realize your intent, whereas the latter gives the car license to do whatever it pleases.
koakuma-chan 2y ago
> 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. So basically they can track everything I upload or type on my keyboard while in Firefox?
- chmod775 2y ago
  No, they cannot. You're replying to a comment where I've broken the sentence down into smaller parts. It's the best I can do.
  - koakuma-chan 2y ago
    How is "to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content" different from "to do anything we want with it"?
    - janalsncm 2y ago
      > navigate, experience, and interact with online content I can do all of those things just fine without Mozilla also experiencing my online content.
    - chmod775 2y ago
      The last part of the sentence narrows it down, as does the first part.
      - koakuma-chan 2y ago
        It doesn't narrow anything down unless they say specifically what they do.
        chmod775 2y ago
        They only have license to use the data in order to realize the intent of the user, how much more specific than that can it get?
mmooss 2y ago
Do you have expertise, for example as an IP attorney? I don't meant to disqualify what you say; at the same time people would benefit from knowing what your analysis comes from. I am not an expert in this field, and I think the meaning is ambiguous. It could be interpreted as you say; it could be interpreted otherwise. Mozilla's current intent isn't relevant to what they do later or its legality or enforceablility.
nerdile 2y ago
I don't have to grant Word a license to what I type in it. This is a highly unusual clause that other software doesn't have. When software has to "phone home" to deliver the functionality you requested, then two things happen: One, a number of privacy regulations kick in, and they need to get you to agree to send your data to them. Two, they now get to move your data out of your control. I mean, you trust them today, so here's hoping they don't ever get hacked or hire someone untrustworthy? It's sad when even to use the basic features of a web browser, you need to agree to send them your data. It's not fundamentally necessary to send your data to Mozilla or their partners in order to load and render a website. It's a dark pattern to obtain consent to collect your data "when it's necessary", and then rewrite your app to make it necessary.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  A license grant like this is common in the context of review systems or forums or the like. For example if I go to addons.mozilla.org and post a review for an addon, Mozilla arguably needs a license grant like this to allow them to publish the review. And preferably they would want to word it in a way that then allows them to use the same review in print or a super bowl spot. The weird thing is that a) I don't think this license grant covers any of that, since publishing a review doesn't improve my experience, it improves other's experiences, and b) Mozilla Websites like addons.mozilla.org have a completely different TOS [1], with a completely different license grant. I have no idea what this license grant is supposed to accomplish, or what it would even allow that requires a license grant in the first place 1: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/mozilla/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/mozilla/
  - wongarsu 2y ago
    Thinking about this a bit more: the most likely use for this specific license grant I can come up with is a 3rd party partnership similar to pre-acquisition Pocket. Imagine if on first startup Firefox offers you to show website recommendations. Maybe a prechecked checkbox. If you don't say no, they send anything you type in the address bar to some third party, that third party throws that in a recommendation system and spits out websites you may want to visit, which Firefox then shows in the new-tab page. This license grant would cover that. They would be using a license on content I input (all my keystrokes in the address bar) to help me experience online content (recommendations for new content) as I indicate (they asked). In principle recommending me websites based on all images I upload with Firefox would also be covered, though that's a bit far fetched. Of course in the EU you'd probably have pretty strict consent requirements because of the GDPR, same with other jurisdictions with strong privacy protections. But in places with weak privacy protections the grant in question should cover all bases to pull something like this
ndiddy 2y ago
Given that Mozilla updated their site a couple days ago to remove any wording along the lines of "Firefox will never sell your data to advertisers" when a flag associated with the new Firefox terms of use is enabled (see https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b...), I'm not so sure that this is a CYA about standard web browser usage.
- theturtletalks 2y ago
 > {% if switch('firefox-tou') %} Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too. {% else %} Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too. {% endif %} The proof is in the code, great work.
- neilv 2y ago
 Are lawyers OK with a client doing things like this? Or is this a client you fire?
- handoflixue 2y ago
 > remove any wording along the lines of "Firefox will never sell your data to advertisers" You mean wording like this? ""Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data“), and we don’t buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love." Which is contained in both the link you provided, and on their official Privacy FAQ: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/ I'm really confused how you can possibly claim that they removed the wording when it's right there for you.
foxylad 2y ago
Look at what they are ACTUALLY doing: https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b... The change removing "Does Firefox sell your personal data? Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That’s a promise." makes it pretty clear that the intention in the changes is NOT just covering their bums for using your input to provide the webpage you wanted. They are positioning to sell your personal data. That promise to never have, never will sell your personal data was highly valued by many Firefox users and Mozilla must be pretty desperate to break it.Particularly given online privacy is suddenly crucial for many out-groups in the US - and pretty much everyone outside the US. The biggest marketing opportunity for years just landed in Mozilla's lap, and they spilled it.
- handoflixue 2y ago
  Full context, from the link YOU provided: ""Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data“), and we don’t buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love." There is no reasonable way to read this as an attempt to sell your data. This quote is also reiterated in the linked Privacy FAQ on their official site: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/
  - int_19h 2y ago
    Is there an actual genuine legal threat or something that prompted this change, or is it just some bored lawyer.
  - roelschroeven 2y ago
    That text continues with this: > We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP). So they share data with partners, which helps to make Firefox commercially viable, meaning those partners pay them for that data. Or in other words, Mozilla sells user data. Even when anonymized or aggregated, it's still selling data.
replete 2y ago
> to help you navigate This definition of helping me (a user} navigate could be interpreted in many ways, from the obvious all the way through to sending Mozilla my data so they can "improve Firefox" and therefore help me through giving them my information. This signals intent against my interest, regardless of whether that actually is there intent. The 'help' in particular is extremely suspicious and ambiguous
exrhizo 2y ago
Thank you sir.
ashu1461 2y ago
https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e#diff-a24e74e4595fa85440a2f4e7e5dcfe68aba6e1e593aef05a2d35581a91423847L65 https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b... This commit says that they can know sell your data as well, which does look beyond using them for improving their software
Gud 2y ago
And how do I deny Mozilla this request to grant them a license “to help me”? Firefox is dead. What do I use now?
- handoflixue 2y ago
  From the link that was already provided: "(BTW there are opt-outs linked from each chapter/category of data, like sponsored content in new tab experience etc. that should lead you through settings to disable such telemetry. Nothing has changed about that, and you can always find it in the privacy center. The changeset you're looking at here is just to remove things that are unfortunately not that simple, and need explaining in the full legal documents instead.)"
thorw93040494 2y ago
In EU user can not legally give up ownership of their personal data, artwork, or intelectual property. "Giving license" is a legal workaround to get ownership.
- graemep 2y ago
  That varies between EU countries.
mrweasel 2y ago
My ISP doesn't need a license to everything I do online to facilitate the transfer of bits from my home to the wider internet, so why should Mozilla need that? How about the transit providers, they certainly don't have a license to anything I do. Assuming that everything is HTTPS, what are they actually licencing? My encrypted data? This is some Mozilla legally idiot that went WAY to far in a "cover our ass" legal document and nobody stopped to think about the potential damage this would to the Mozilla and Firefox reputation, which already isn't doing so well. They didn't even stop to think if MAYBE this needed some clarification, to avoid unwarranted speculations. It's getting increasingly clear that the people running Mozilla has absolutely no idea what they are doing, nor do they have any respect for the project they've are in charge of. At this point I wouldn't be surprise to learn that the Mozilla CEO uses Edge.
mariusor 2y ago
I think everyone is unsettled about the fact that Mozilla was able "to help you ... as you indicate" for twenty years before today without the need of a license agreement. And so we ask: what's changed?
mppm 2y ago
I think you are bending the meaning of the word license to the breaking point here. What your analysis implies, is that Mozilla needs permission to store and process your data in order to carry out the services implied by your use of Firefox. Obtaining a "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license" is definitely an excessive move in that context.
tomp 2y ago
> complete lie I disagree. I definitely editorialized it to make it attention-grabbing and point out the essence, because I wanted to raise awareness and spur discussion. But they do own it in the digital sense (i.e. "piracy is not stealing" sense). You get to keep your own copy, but they also get a copy and they own that copy. > help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content These terms are vague enough to allow pretty much everything. Google would argue that tracking your information so they target ads is "helping you navigate" ("you see, sponsored links are more relevant!"). As well as "lets train an AI model that helps users experience the internet!"
ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
> Title is a complete lie/misleading. They get a license, not ownership. I completely agree. Saw the HN title, clicked through to the page and saw nothing relevant to the title. I've flagged the topic now.
miju293 2y ago
Maybe Mozilla doesn't own that information legally, but they grant themselves practically unlimited rights to do what they want, as the restriction they imposed to themselves ("to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.") couldn't be more wishy-washy. No difference to me. Goodbye Firefox. By the way, what alternatives are there for Thunderbird?
zihotki 2y ago
The main problem with the "important part in cursive" is that it's Mozilla execs who decide what is actually a "to help you". There is no way to opt-out of "help".
animitronix 2y ago
Trash take. Don't try to make this seem ok.
krick 2y ago
Honestly, I am a bit surprised dang didn't change the title, given all the outrage and huge number of upvotes. Regardless of whether your analysis is missing anything, it just says what license doesn't say, and in that sense, yes, it's a complete lie, and people who were completely ok with what's going on yesterday are completely outraged and are massively switching to brave/chromium(lol)/ladybird again. And, honestly, at this point this feels seriously misguided. However many bad things I can say about Mozilla, what really has changed on 25 Feb? Nothing much, really. The removed claim that they don't sell user data (linked in another comment) might be actually the bigger news here. But that also is much less important than what data they can actually gather (compared to brave/chromium/ladybird/whatever). If you can still disable tracking as before, well, ok. Obviously, I don't think it's ideal in any case, and I'd rather like to have the same relationships with my browser as I have with Vim. But that is besides the point, the point being that news aren't really news (at least, definitely not the same news as 90% of posters in the topic are perceiving/discussing).
dang 2y ago
Thanks—we've updated the title to mention licenses now. I think probably we'll end up merging all these threads; not sure yet. Edit: merging into https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185909 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185909. Earlier thread (in this case) was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200065, which had that title.

lopatin 2y ago

I still don't get it. Is Mozilla phoning home the fact that I pressed the button?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
chmod775 2y ago
Short answer: No. Long answer: Unless the button says "phone home my information to Mozilla", this license wouldn't cover that. This license only covers whatever is necessary to make the button itself work - whatever is necessary to realize the user's intent.
- inetknght 2y ago
  They didn't need a license to your data before. Why should they need it now?
  - ykonstant 2y ago
    Let me guess: chmod775 will not reply to this comment.
    - procaryote 2y ago
      It's an apt username for naively giving read access
    - chmod775 2y ago
      See my reply to you here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43205587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43205587 Honestly I'm surprised that a research technician is more interested in this style of "argument" rather than figuring out the meaning of a (very precisely worded) sentence to for its own sake.
  - handoflixue 2y ago
    From the link that was already provided, and which is repeated in their Privacy FAQ: "Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love." That seems like a pretty reasonable justification to me
    - inetknght 2y ago
      Nope. It seems like legalspeak to say "we sell your data" while making it sound like they don't.
wongarsu 2y ago
That'd be a matter for the privacy policy. The section in question is whether they can then go ahead and publish a list of all the buttons you pressed. Which according to this license grant they can, but only if it "helps you navigate, experience, [or] interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox". What does that mean? I have no clue. It's a really strange restriction and I can't decide if that's wide open or so narrow that it is basically never met

simpaticoder 2y ago

>Let's dissect what it actually says I don't believe that dissection is a good way to understand the implications of this clause. >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. Rather than go over this word-by-word, please tell me: what limits exactly does this place on Mozilla? What rights does it give to the user? One way to express such a limit is by construction, that is, construct hypothetical acts A, B, and C that would be allowed under these terms, but actions D, E, and F would not be allowed (and be a cause for action by a user). I assert that the first set includes literally anything you can imagine (modulo a sophists ability to morph "help you" into anything they want), and the second set is empty. To steel-man this concept, let us say that Mozilla wants to store and use your password to your bank to check your balance regularly. I assert that this action is allowed by there terms. Why? First, you used Firefox and therefore enabled the clause. Second, your authentication details are entered through Firefox, and this constitutes "input" or "upload", to which they assert ownership (which I will use as shorthand for a "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license"). One thing they could do with your financial data is show it to you (least harm). Another thing is to aggregate it with other's data (medium harm). Yet another application would be to pool it into a database to be sold to the highest bidder (maximum harm). In the latter case, you could make the argument that such a move "helps you" by giving Mozilla a reliable revenue stream that helps fund continued development of the browser. Needless to say, I am appalled and feel bad for all the many people I've told about Firefox over the years, described it as a bastion of fairness and privacy in an all too often sinister world. And now that they've assert these extraordinary rights over user data, I feel ashamed of my advocacy. I daresay that even if they rescind this incredible overreach, I will not come back. My trust has been broken and cannot be easily (if ever) repaired.

chmod775 2y ago
> First, you used Firefox and therefore enabled the clause. I believe your confusion stems from a misreading of "as you indicate with your use of Firefox". You're reading it like "by using Firefox, you indicate". Contemplate the difference between "The car is allowed to move as you indicate with the controls." versus "By using the controls, you indicate the car is allowed to move." The former explicitly only allows the car to realize your intent, whereas the latter gives the car license to do whatever it pleases.

koakuma-chan 2y ago

> 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. So basically they can track everything I upload or type on my keyboard while in Firefox?

chmod775 2y ago
No, they cannot. You're replying to a comment where I've broken the sentence down into smaller parts. It's the best I can do.
- koakuma-chan 2y ago
  How is "to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content" different from "to do anything we want with it"?
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    > navigate, experience, and interact with online content I can do all of those things just fine without Mozilla also experiencing my online content.
  - chmod775 2y ago
    The last part of the sentence narrows it down, as does the first part.
    - koakuma-chan 2y ago
      It doesn't narrow anything down unless they say specifically what they do.
      - chmod775 2y ago
        They only have license to use the data in order to realize the intent of the user, how much more specific than that can it get?

mmooss 2y ago

Do you have expertise, for example as an IP attorney? I don't meant to disqualify what you say; at the same time people would benefit from knowing what your analysis comes from. I am not an expert in this field, and I think the meaning is ambiguous. It could be interpreted as you say; it could be interpreted otherwise. Mozilla's current intent isn't relevant to what they do later or its legality or enforceablility.

nerdile 2y ago

I don't have to grant Word a license to what I type in it. This is a highly unusual clause that other software doesn't have. When software has to "phone home" to deliver the functionality you requested, then two things happen: One, a number of privacy regulations kick in, and they need to get you to agree to send your data to them. Two, they now get to move your data out of your control. I mean, you trust them today, so here's hoping they don't ever get hacked or hire someone untrustworthy? It's sad when even to use the basic features of a web browser, you need to agree to send them your data. It's not fundamentally necessary to send your data to Mozilla or their partners in order to load and render a website. It's a dark pattern to obtain consent to collect your data "when it's necessary", and then rewrite your app to make it necessary.

wongarsu 2y ago
A license grant like this is common in the context of review systems or forums or the like. For example if I go to addons.mozilla.org and post a review for an addon, Mozilla arguably needs a license grant like this to allow them to publish the review. And preferably they would want to word it in a way that then allows them to use the same review in print or a super bowl spot. The weird thing is that a) I don't think this license grant covers any of that, since publishing a review doesn't improve my experience, it improves other's experiences, and b) Mozilla Websites like addons.mozilla.org have a completely different TOS [1], with a completely different license grant. I have no idea what this license grant is supposed to accomplish, or what it would even allow that requires a license grant in the first place 1: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/mozilla/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/mozilla/
- wongarsu 2y ago
  Thinking about this a bit more: the most likely use for this specific license grant I can come up with is a 3rd party partnership similar to pre-acquisition Pocket. Imagine if on first startup Firefox offers you to show website recommendations. Maybe a prechecked checkbox. If you don't say no, they send anything you type in the address bar to some third party, that third party throws that in a recommendation system and spits out websites you may want to visit, which Firefox then shows in the new-tab page. This license grant would cover that. They would be using a license on content I input (all my keystrokes in the address bar) to help me experience online content (recommendations for new content) as I indicate (they asked). In principle recommending me websites based on all images I upload with Firefox would also be covered, though that's a bit far fetched. Of course in the EU you'd probably have pretty strict consent requirements because of the GDPR, same with other jurisdictions with strong privacy protections. But in places with weak privacy protections the grant in question should cover all bases to pull something like this

ndiddy 2y ago

Given that Mozilla updated their site a couple days ago to remove any wording along the lines of "Firefox will never sell your data to advertisers" when a flag associated with the new Firefox terms of use is enabled (see https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b...), I'm not so sure that this is a CYA about standard web browser usage.

theturtletalks 2y ago
> {% if switch('firefox-tou') %} Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too. {% else %} Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too. {% endif %} The proof is in the code, great work.
neilv 2y ago
Are lawyers OK with a client doing things like this? Or is this a client you fire?
handoflixue 2y ago
> remove any wording along the lines of "Firefox will never sell your data to advertisers" You mean wording like this? ""Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data“), and we don’t buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love." Which is contained in both the link you provided, and on their official Privacy FAQ: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/ I'm really confused how you can possibly claim that they removed the wording when it's right there for you.

foxylad 2y ago

Look at what they are ACTUALLY doing: https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b... The change removing "Does Firefox sell your personal data? Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That’s a promise." makes it pretty clear that the intention in the changes is NOT just covering their bums for using your input to provide the webpage you wanted. They are positioning to sell your personal data. That promise to never have, never will sell your personal data was highly valued by many Firefox users and Mozilla must be pretty desperate to break it.Particularly given online privacy is suddenly crucial for many out-groups in the US - and pretty much everyone outside the US. The biggest marketing opportunity for years just landed in Mozilla's lap, and they spilled it.

handoflixue 2y ago
Full context, from the link YOU provided: ""Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data“), and we don’t buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love." There is no reasonable way to read this as an attempt to sell your data. This quote is also reiterated in the linked Privacy FAQ on their official site: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/
- int_19h 2y ago
  Is there an actual genuine legal threat or something that prompted this change, or is it just some bored lawyer.
- roelschroeven 2y ago
  That text continues with this: > We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP). So they share data with partners, which helps to make Firefox commercially viable, meaning those partners pay them for that data. Or in other words, Mozilla sells user data. Even when anonymized or aggregated, it's still selling data.

replete 2y ago

> to help you navigate This definition of helping me (a user} navigate could be interpreted in many ways, from the obvious all the way through to sending Mozilla my data so they can "improve Firefox" and therefore help me through giving them my information. This signals intent against my interest, regardless of whether that actually is there intent. The 'help' in particular is extremely suspicious and ambiguous

exrhizo 2y ago

Thank you sir.

ashu1461 2y ago

https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e#diff-a24e74e4595fa85440a2f4e7e5dcfe68aba6e1e593aef05a2d35581a91423847L65 https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b... This commit says that they can know sell your data as well, which does look beyond using them for improving their software

Gud 2y ago

And how do I deny Mozilla this request to grant them a license “to help me”? Firefox is dead. What do I use now?

handoflixue 2y ago
From the link that was already provided: "(BTW there are opt-outs linked from each chapter/category of data, like sponsored content in new tab experience etc. that should lead you through settings to disable such telemetry. Nothing has changed about that, and you can always find it in the privacy center. The changeset you're looking at here is just to remove things that are unfortunately not that simple, and need explaining in the full legal documents instead.)"

thorw93040494 2y ago

In EU user can not legally give up ownership of their personal data, artwork, or intelectual property. "Giving license" is a legal workaround to get ownership.

graemep 2y ago
That varies between EU countries.

mrweasel 2y ago

My ISP doesn't need a license to everything I do online to facilitate the transfer of bits from my home to the wider internet, so why should Mozilla need that? How about the transit providers, they certainly don't have a license to anything I do. Assuming that everything is HTTPS, what are they actually licencing? My encrypted data? This is some Mozilla legally idiot that went WAY to far in a "cover our ass" legal document and nobody stopped to think about the potential damage this would to the Mozilla and Firefox reputation, which already isn't doing so well. They didn't even stop to think if MAYBE this needed some clarification, to avoid unwarranted speculations. It's getting increasingly clear that the people running Mozilla has absolutely no idea what they are doing, nor do they have any respect for the project they've are in charge of. At this point I wouldn't be surprise to learn that the Mozilla CEO uses Edge.

mariusor 2y ago

I think everyone is unsettled about the fact that Mozilla was able "to help you ... as you indicate" for twenty years before today without the need of a license agreement. And so we ask: what's changed?

mppm 2y ago

I think you are bending the meaning of the word license to the breaking point here. What your analysis implies, is that Mozilla needs permission to store and process your data in order to carry out the services implied by your use of Firefox. Obtaining a "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license" is definitely an excessive move in that context.

tomp 2y ago

> complete lie I disagree. I definitely editorialized it to make it attention-grabbing and point out the essence, because I wanted to raise awareness and spur discussion. But they do own it in the digital sense (i.e. "piracy is not stealing" sense). You get to keep your own copy, but they also get a copy and they own that copy. > help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content These terms are vague enough to allow pretty much everything. Google would argue that tracking your information so they target ads is "helping you navigate" ("you see, sponsored links are more relevant!"). As well as "lets train an AI model that helps users experience the internet!"

ndsipa_pomu 2y ago

> Title is a complete lie/misleading. They get a license, not ownership. I completely agree. Saw the HN title, clicked through to the page and saw nothing relevant to the title. I've flagged the topic now.

miju293 2y ago

Maybe Mozilla doesn't own that information legally, but they grant themselves practically unlimited rights to do what they want, as the restriction they imposed to themselves ("to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.") couldn't be more wishy-washy. No difference to me. Goodbye Firefox. By the way, what alternatives are there for Thunderbird?

zihotki 2y ago

The main problem with the "important part in cursive" is that it's Mozilla execs who decide what is actually a "to help you". There is no way to opt-out of "help".

animitronix 2y ago

Trash take. Don't try to make this seem ok.

krick 2y ago

Honestly, I am a bit surprised dang didn't change the title, given all the outrage and huge number of upvotes. Regardless of whether your analysis is missing anything, it just says what license doesn't say, and in that sense, yes, it's a complete lie, and people who were completely ok with what's going on yesterday are completely outraged and are massively switching to brave/chromium(lol)/ladybird again. And, honestly, at this point this feels seriously misguided. However many bad things I can say about Mozilla, what really has changed on 25 Feb? Nothing much, really. The removed claim that they don't sell user data (linked in another comment) might be actually the bigger news here. But that also is much less important than what data they can actually gather (compared to brave/chromium/ladybird/whatever). If you can still disable tracking as before, well, ok. Obviously, I don't think it's ideal in any case, and I'd rather like to have the same relationships with my browser as I have with Vim. But that is besides the point, the point being that news aren't really news (at least, definitely not the same news as 90% of posters in the topic are perceiving/discussing).

dang 2y ago

Thanks—we've updated the title to mention licenses now. I think probably we'll end up merging all these threads; not sure yet. Edit: merging into https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185909 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185909. Earlier thread (in this case) was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200065, which had that title.