4 ms·

>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 in

>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.
- simpaticoder 2y ago
  You have now edited your comment at least 3 times. I find it hard to take this argument seriously, and indeed struggle to understand how it isn't trolling. At best this language is ambiguous; at worst it is misleading. It certainly ignores the core point of my comment, which is to construct hypothetical actions by Mozilla that would NOT be permitted by the clause. I strongly feel that your purpose in defending Mozilla here would be better served by providing those examples.
  - chmod775 2y ago
    > You have now edited your comment at least 3 times. Yes. I reworked the example a few times. I think the third rewrite made it pretty clear. > It certainly ignores the core point of my comment, which is to construct hypothetical actions by Mozilla that would NOT be permitted by the clause. The hypothetical action you gave is not permitted, because the user would not have indicated they wanted Mozilla to do that. Firefox/Mozilla is only allowed to use your data as indicated by you.
    - janalsncm 2y ago
      Mozilla should consider rewriting their statement for clarity, unless of course the ambiguity is the point.
      - unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
        The statement is clear and simple and would not benefit from a TOS rewrite. What you really want are clearer processing directions built into the Firefox UI, not a longer or different TOS. Something like, a popup over the execute button on the search bar disclosing the specific processing instruction you are providing by pressing that button, and by whom. Or, when you use a vertical scroll bar, a confirmation that no processing is occurring outside your local machine. These things would satisfy some more detail-minded people, but ultimately would provide no significant value to either Mozilla or the marginal user, so it's really no mystery why Firefox does not do this.
foxglacier 2y ago
I think that's just a cover-all and they also have a privacy policy [1] which is explicit about how they use it and how they don't, for example: "the data stays on your device and is not sent to Mozilla’s servers unless it says otherwise in this Notice." ... "When you perform a search in Firefox, your search query, device data and location data will be processed by your default search engine" ... "Mozilla derives the high level category [...] from keywords in that query [...] privacy preserving technologies such that Mozilla only learns that someone, somewhere, performed a search relating to a particular category, without knowing who." ... Review Checked, AI Chatbots, advertising on new tab page, etc. So yea Firefox does so much they pretty much have to use your data, but it's not a blank cheque to do what they want. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ Not so say I like some of those things - advertising and categorizing searches. But still, it's finite and explicit.
distortedsignal 2y ago
> what limits exactly does this place on Mozilla? Mozilla is bound to only use the content to help the use navigate, experience and interact with online content as the user has indicated. > One thing they could do with your financial data is show it to you (least harm). Yes - this is what the user indicated. > Another thing is to aggregate it with other's data (medium harm). And the user has not indicated that this would be a permitted use of the data - thereby revoking the license of the first clause. If the data is used outside of the final clause of the license, that is unlicensed use of data. This would be a material breach of the contract by the corporation. This could open them up to massive legal penalties.
- zihotki 2y ago
  What is the definition of "help"? Is it showing ads to help you discover the products or services?

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.

simpaticoder 2y ago
You have now edited your comment at least 3 times. I find it hard to take this argument seriously, and indeed struggle to understand how it isn't trolling. At best this language is ambiguous; at worst it is misleading. It certainly ignores the core point of my comment, which is to construct hypothetical actions by Mozilla that would NOT be permitted by the clause. I strongly feel that your purpose in defending Mozilla here would be better served by providing those examples.
- chmod775 2y ago
  > You have now edited your comment at least 3 times. Yes. I reworked the example a few times. I think the third rewrite made it pretty clear. > It certainly ignores the core point of my comment, which is to construct hypothetical actions by Mozilla that would NOT be permitted by the clause. The hypothetical action you gave is not permitted, because the user would not have indicated they wanted Mozilla to do that. Firefox/Mozilla is only allowed to use your data as indicated by you.
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    Mozilla should consider rewriting their statement for clarity, unless of course the ambiguity is the point.
    - unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
      The statement is clear and simple and would not benefit from a TOS rewrite. What you really want are clearer processing directions built into the Firefox UI, not a longer or different TOS. Something like, a popup over the execute button on the search bar disclosing the specific processing instruction you are providing by pressing that button, and by whom. Or, when you use a vertical scroll bar, a confirmation that no processing is occurring outside your local machine. These things would satisfy some more detail-minded people, but ultimately would provide no significant value to either Mozilla or the marginal user, so it's really no mystery why Firefox does not do this.

foxglacier 2y ago

I think that's just a cover-all and they also have a privacy policy [1] which is explicit about how they use it and how they don't, for example: "the data stays on your device and is not sent to Mozilla’s servers unless it says otherwise in this Notice." ... "When you perform a search in Firefox, your search query, device data and location data will be processed by your default search engine" ... "Mozilla derives the high level category [...] from keywords in that query [...] privacy preserving technologies such that Mozilla only learns that someone, somewhere, performed a search relating to a particular category, without knowing who." ... Review Checked, AI Chatbots, advertising on new tab page, etc. So yea Firefox does so much they pretty much have to use your data, but it's not a blank cheque to do what they want. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ Not so say I like some of those things - advertising and categorizing searches. But still, it's finite and explicit.

distortedsignal 2y ago

> what limits exactly does this place on Mozilla? Mozilla is bound to only use the content to help the use navigate, experience and interact with online content as the user has indicated. > One thing they could do with your financial data is show it to you (least harm). Yes - this is what the user indicated. > Another thing is to aggregate it with other's data (medium harm). And the user has not indicated that this would be a permitted use of the data - thereby revoking the license of the first clause. If the data is used outside of the final clause of the license, that is unlicensed use of data. This would be a material breach of the contract by the corporation. This could open them up to massive legal penalties.

zihotki 2y ago
What is the definition of "help"? Is it showing ads to help you discover the products or services?