4 ms·

It's quite relevant to highlight that Mozilla is removing the promise that they won't sell your data: https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d81

by nout 2y ago

It's quite relevant to highlight that Mozilla is removing the promise that they won't sell your data: https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e#commitcomment-153095625 https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b... Another browser option is Brave, but you have to disable the altcoins stuff :/

WithinReason 2y ago
No you don't, it's opt in.
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." I don't think that's an unreasonable stance, and they're still explicitly saying "We are as close to not selling data as it is legally possible to be". This is 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/
- ginko 2y ago
  Still makes it sound like they want to profit from user data.
- pbhjpbhj 2y ago
  What "sale of data" falls under a legal definition but would be understood by everyone to not be selling data? An example? It sounds more like 'we sell your data, but we do it in a legally protracted way so we could claim up to now that we don't'. Given this relates to Firefox's central selling proposition, they surely have an essay detailing exactly what data they're selling?
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
    I would expect that the default search engine deals that Firefox mostly relies on for financing could be interpreted as such. Mozilla gets money, and as a result of the deal, the searches (data) of anyone who didn't change the default go to the company running the default search engine.
    - folmar 2y ago
      By default Google gets not only search but everything entered into the address bar (for "suggestions").
      - account42 2y ago
        Yeah, that's pretty creepy - that also includes private that that would otherwise not reach the internet.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Yizahi 2y ago
    It is always the same idea - if the data is even slightly touched and/or processed, it is suddenly not a personal data anymore and is "ok" to be sold.
  - glenstein 2y ago
    >What "sale of data" falls under a legal definition but would be understood by everyone to not be selling data? An example? I assume probably data that's anonymized (in some sense) and/or aggregated (in some sense). But there's so much grey area there that it's a lot less reassuring than a straight up blanket statement that they used to be able to make.
    - account42 2y ago
- roelschroeven 2y ago
  Even fuller context: > 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. 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)." How is sharing data with partners in order to make Firefox commercially viable (i.e. getting money in exchange) not "selling data"? Anonymized or aggregated data is still data, and it's quite disingenuous of them to try to weasel it in by changing the definition. > We are as close to not selling data as it is legally possible to be. Normally when you say "as close to X as legally possible", that means you want to do X fully, but you can't because the law forbids you to. X in this case is "not selling data". But "not selling data" is not illegal at all. What are they even trying to say here? (Also I don't find that sentence on their FAQ page)
  - pimterry 2y ago
    > How is sharing data with partners in order to make Firefox commercially viable (i.e. getting money in exchange) not "selling data"? Anonymized or aggregated data is still data, and it's quite disingenuous of them to try to weasel it in by changing the definition. This situation isn't perfect, but I disagree that this is particularly weasely or disingenuous. It's not black & white and there are meaningful differences here. I think the assumption of 'selling data' and primary concern from most users is the sale of their identifiable personal data - i.e. telling advertisers "this user is interested in X", using their privileged position as a browser to track and collect that information. This is absolutely what Facebook is doing when they sell your data, for example. The description here is suggesting that Firefox are still committed to never doing that or anything similar. That is the main thing I'd want to know, so that's great. However, it sounds like they may be selling generic anonymous data in some way - for example telling Pocket what percentage of people use the Pocket extension, or telling Google what percentage of people change their search engine away from Google. Both of those are cases where you can imagine they might receive significant extra income from partners given that data, and they feel this is reasonable but means they can technically no longer say the 'never sell your data'. You could consider that level of data sharing problematic of course. That said, there is spectrum of problems here, and personally (and I think for most people) I am much more concerned about the tracking & distribution of actual personal identifiable data than I am about generic metrics like those, if that is what's happening (unfortunately, they haven't explained much further so this is still somewhat speculation - I fully agree more precise language would be very helpful).
- tomrod 2y ago
  > I don't think that's an unreasonable stance, and they're still explicitly saying "We are as close to not selling data as it is legally possible to be". This is 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/ It's actually super simple and needs no obfuscation or verbal esoterica. Don't engage in a contract where data Firefox has collected from users is transferred to a third party. Done. Easy as. The sister comment on search engine data transfer is FUD -- the browser can of course send queries to a default search engine without needing to pipe any information to Firefox. Firefox would need no usage monitoring whatsoever, just do a firm fixed price contract and the details are settled.
  - dcow 2y ago
    It may be armchair speculation, but it’s not FUD.
    - tomrod 2y ago
      Perhaps no fear, but definitely uncertainty and doubt, thus in the ballpark.
Xiol32 2y ago
There's also Zen, which is Firefox based.
bix6 2y ago
By altcoins do you mean BAT? What’s the issue with it?
- Ylpertnodi 2y ago
  Turn off bat - no issues. I installed brave from a portable version and update the parts - found thru trial and error - as required, from the latest downloads
  - bix6 2y ago
    What’s the issue with BAT though?
    - _cenw 2y ago
      They falsely advertised that creators who didn't opt in (or even knew about this) could be supported by donating BAT, and then kept it once it remained unclaimed. BAT is also different from adblocking, because it monetizes other people's content. It's about as close to stealing as you can get in the ad business, aside from the Honey affiliate highjacking.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        I don't think they kept any BAT in that situation.
      - soundnote 2y ago
        The BAT was Brave's to begin with as far as I know, part of a pool to promote the launch of their tipping system. It makes perfect sense to return the BAT users could assign from the pool to creators back to the pool if the creators didn't sign up. Which is not to say that the tipping UI wasn't a hot mess, which it was. Hard to tell who was onboard, who wasn't and eg. Tom Scott got a bunch of tips when he had no interest in the platform whatsoever. > BAT is also different from adblocking, because it monetizes other people's content. It doesn't. The browser literally shows you toaster popups all by itself, and gives you some pocket change amounts of BAT for viewing them.
herbst 2y ago
I also thought Brave is the browser with the annoying token. But I still haven't seen anything about BAT but happily using brave for a while now.

by nout 2y ago

WithinReason 2y ago

No you don't, it's opt in.

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." I don't think that's an unreasonable stance, and they're still explicitly saying "We are as close to not selling data as it is legally possible to be". This is 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/

ginko 2y ago
Still makes it sound like they want to profit from user data.
pbhjpbhj 2y ago
What "sale of data" falls under a legal definition but would be understood by everyone to not be selling data? An example? It sounds more like 'we sell your data, but we do it in a legally protracted way so we could claim up to now that we don't'. Given this relates to Firefox's central selling proposition, they surely have an essay detailing exactly what data they're selling?
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
  I would expect that the default search engine deals that Firefox mostly relies on for financing could be interpreted as such. Mozilla gets money, and as a result of the deal, the searches (data) of anyone who didn't change the default go to the company running the default search engine.
  - folmar 2y ago
    By default Google gets not only search but everything entered into the address bar (for "suggestions").
    - account42 2y ago
      Yeah, that's pretty creepy - that also includes private that that would otherwise not reach the internet.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Yizahi 2y ago
  It is always the same idea - if the data is even slightly touched and/or processed, it is suddenly not a personal data anymore and is "ok" to be sold.
- glenstein 2y ago
  >What "sale of data" falls under a legal definition but would be understood by everyone to not be selling data? An example? I assume probably data that's anonymized (in some sense) and/or aggregated (in some sense). But there's so much grey area there that it's a lot less reassuring than a straight up blanket statement that they used to be able to make.
  - account42 2y ago
roelschroeven 2y ago
Even fuller context: > 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. 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)." How is sharing data with partners in order to make Firefox commercially viable (i.e. getting money in exchange) not "selling data"? Anonymized or aggregated data is still data, and it's quite disingenuous of them to try to weasel it in by changing the definition. > We are as close to not selling data as it is legally possible to be. Normally when you say "as close to X as legally possible", that means you want to do X fully, but you can't because the law forbids you to. X in this case is "not selling data". But "not selling data" is not illegal at all. What are they even trying to say here? (Also I don't find that sentence on their FAQ page)
- pimterry 2y ago
  > How is sharing data with partners in order to make Firefox commercially viable (i.e. getting money in exchange) not "selling data"? Anonymized or aggregated data is still data, and it's quite disingenuous of them to try to weasel it in by changing the definition. This situation isn't perfect, but I disagree that this is particularly weasely or disingenuous. It's not black & white and there are meaningful differences here. I think the assumption of 'selling data' and primary concern from most users is the sale of their identifiable personal data - i.e. telling advertisers "this user is interested in X", using their privileged position as a browser to track and collect that information. This is absolutely what Facebook is doing when they sell your data, for example. The description here is suggesting that Firefox are still committed to never doing that or anything similar. That is the main thing I'd want to know, so that's great. However, it sounds like they may be selling generic anonymous data in some way - for example telling Pocket what percentage of people use the Pocket extension, or telling Google what percentage of people change their search engine away from Google. Both of those are cases where you can imagine they might receive significant extra income from partners given that data, and they feel this is reasonable but means they can technically no longer say the 'never sell your data'. You could consider that level of data sharing problematic of course. That said, there is spectrum of problems here, and personally (and I think for most people) I am much more concerned about the tracking & distribution of actual personal identifiable data than I am about generic metrics like those, if that is what's happening (unfortunately, they haven't explained much further so this is still somewhat speculation - I fully agree more precise language would be very helpful).
tomrod 2y ago
> I don't think that's an unreasonable stance, and they're still explicitly saying "We are as close to not selling data as it is legally possible to be". This is 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/ It's actually super simple and needs no obfuscation or verbal esoterica. Don't engage in a contract where data Firefox has collected from users is transferred to a third party. Done. Easy as. The sister comment on search engine data transfer is FUD -- the browser can of course send queries to a default search engine without needing to pipe any information to Firefox. Firefox would need no usage monitoring whatsoever, just do a firm fixed price contract and the details are settled.
- dcow 2y ago
  It may be armchair speculation, but it’s not FUD.
  - tomrod 2y ago
    Perhaps no fear, but definitely uncertainty and doubt, thus in the ballpark.

Xiol32 2y ago

There's also Zen, which is Firefox based.

bix6 2y ago

By altcoins do you mean BAT? What’s the issue with it?

Ylpertnodi 2y ago
Turn off bat - no issues. I installed brave from a portable version and update the parts - found thru trial and error - as required, from the latest downloads
- bix6 2y ago
  What’s the issue with BAT though?
  - _cenw 2y ago
    They falsely advertised that creators who didn't opt in (or even knew about this) could be supported by donating BAT, and then kept it once it remained unclaimed. BAT is also different from adblocking, because it monetizes other people's content. It's about as close to stealing as you can get in the ad business, aside from the Honey affiliate highjacking.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      I don't think they kept any BAT in that situation.
    - soundnote 2y ago
      The BAT was Brave's to begin with as far as I know, part of a pool to promote the launch of their tipping system. It makes perfect sense to return the BAT users could assign from the pool to creators back to the pool if the creators didn't sign up. Which is not to say that the tipping UI wasn't a hot mess, which it was. Hard to tell who was onboard, who wasn't and eg. Tom Scott got a bunch of tips when he had no interest in the platform whatsoever. > BAT is also different from adblocking, because it monetizes other people's content. It doesn't. The browser literally shows you toaster popups all by itself, and gives you some pocket change amounts of BAT for viewing them.

herbst 2y ago

I also thought Brave is the browser with the annoying token. But I still haven't seen anything about BAT but happily using brave for a while now.