11 ms·

> 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

> 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.” THANK YOU California for this definition of selling data, which is accurate, and representative of what people think of when discussions of selling data come up. > In order to make Firefox commercially viable, there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners Ok, so that’s pretty straightforward. According to CA and other states Mozilla is collecting and selling your data. Which is exactly what everyone is upset about and means exactly what everyone thought it meant.

alabastervlog 2y ago
> in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.” JFC, it's funny they try to call this out as some kind of a "weird" definition when that's just... what selling is.
- hedora 2y ago
  Usually, when I point out that Google sells your data and there’s no possible way to actually opt out, someone replies to say that’s not true, then defines “sell” in some way that most people would disagree with.
- WD-42 2y ago
  I actually laughed out loud at this. “We can’t say we don’t sell your data because some places have definitions of “sell” that are legally difficult to interpret, for example”: <completely unambiguous definition of selling follows>
  - drivingmenuts 2y ago
    That was in California. Presumably, it's worded somewhat differently, and with different intent, elsewhere. 50 states, plus Federal laws, and all the other countries of the world and internal jurisdictions is how many possible variations? And before you say "Yeah, but they all mean mostly the same thing", remember it's lawyers we're dealing with, who will happily charge large sums of money arguing over misplaced punctuation and legislators who will happily take bribes from those same lawyers.
    - Nition 2y ago
      Most people here are assuming that they mentioned that one specifically because it was one of those that Mozilla feels is too broad or difficult. It could be simply read as a random example, but I think that's quite a generous interpretation.
    - wtallis 2y ago
      California was the example they chose to provide. From this, we can reasonably infer that Mozilla does not have a better example handy to illustrate what's wrong with legal definitions around selling user's data. If their best example is completely unconvincing, we should remain unconvinced.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
wwweston 2y ago
Yeah, "Calm down everyone, the only issue here is that certain jurisdictions have sensible definitions that mean we can't legally claim we're not selling data because we are" is arguably clarifying but it's not particularly comforting. Seems safest to assume that if it can be tracked, it will be. And traded too.
- 85g5gh85g 2y ago
  If they intended to clarify wording, they would have added something in place of their original wording instead of deleting it entirely. Legal team isn't slipping like that.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Didn't they do that?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ants_everywhere 2y ago
Mozilla is continuing to dig its own grave
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
tomxor 2y ago
If they would simply tell us what part of Firefox is affected by the CCPA's definition of "selling user data", there would be no room for misinterpretation and this would be over. If it's as innocent as "Firefox has to send HTTP packets to arbitrary web servers to achieve the fundamental function of loading a page" and that web server is considered 3rd party by CCPA, then everyone would understand... this is either poor communication or they are hiding something else (which everyone should rightly assume in this day and age). Just tell us already Mozilla!
- chrismorgan 2y ago
  From the article: > In order to make Firefox commercially viable, there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar. And remember, they’re citing CCPA’s definition as meaning “… in exchange for ‘monetary’ or ‘other valuable considerations’”. This is exactly what people mean by “selling”. It’s not the innocent thing you’re contemplating, about a browser doing its job. It’s specifically about things like serving ads, making that browser “commercially viable”. Mozilla is stopping claiming they’re never selling your data because they’ve been selling your data for the last few years.
  - wtallis 2y ago
    Selling ads isn't even the problem. They could do that and still truthfully, legally claim they never sell your data. Mozilla is helping perpetuate the illusion that online advertising necessarily includes collecting and selling data about the users who are shown the ads.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      AFAIK they do the opposite: They've pioneered ways to target advertising without your data leaving your computer. See for example, https://www.adexchanger.com/privacy/mozilla-acquires-anonym-a-privacy-tech-startup-founded-by-two-top-former-meta-execs/ https://www.adexchanger.com/privacy/mozilla-acquires-anonym-... "That shared mission is predicated on the notion that advertising and privacy are not – or at least don’t have to be – mutually exclusive." And it goes into detail on the investment and technology in that area.
chinathrow 2y ago
Mozilla, then Phoenix, then Firefox user for over 27y or so. If they can't stop abusing their users, I will look for another browser, goddamnit.
- JadeNB 2y ago
  > If they can't stop abusing their users, I will look for another browser, goddamnit. This seems to go beyond "can't stop" to "are actively plotting a course to continue." I've seen a lot of missteps from Mozilla over the years, but I never thought I'd see them selling my data. From seeing the news yesterday to today, I know now I have to stop recommending Firefox, and figure out a browser that I can trust.
- ho_schi 2y ago
  They are only three viable web-engines left over from the second browser-war: * Blink (Google): Used in everything, from Chrome, Edge, Opera, Qt-Toolkit, Electron. * Gecko (Mozilla): Firefox. And Waterfox? I assume Gecko is still hard to integrate. * WebKit and WebKitGtk (Apple and Gtk): Safari, Epiphany and Gtk-Toolkit. Easy to integrate. And the only engine where I’m aware that actually two side actively cooperate in development. Epiphany is small and nice, but they need a lot more developers. And I think they should use ffmpeg, gstreamer seems to be a source of issues for many years. But again, they need us, every helper capable of C++ is welcome. Ladybird an another new engine, implemented in C++. But it is in alpha-state, only for developers. Everyone else who tries to show us a new browser means “use that Google thing with another name on it”.
  - rapnie 2y ago
    Though not yet ready for the public don't forget the promising https://servo.org https://servo.org (It is very usable already in combination with Tauri as alternative to Electron + Chromium)
  - IYasha 2y ago
    Some more: * Librewolf, Palemoon, Falkon.
rdtsc 2y ago
This is a funny case where Mozilla thought they are clarifying their position by pointing out how ridiculously CA defines "sales" only for it to blow up in their face. This is not the first time it happens to companies where in an act of desperation they issue some "apology" or explanation only to make the whole thing worse. Now people will read even more carefully their privacy policy https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/#notice https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/#notice and may find things like: > Firefox also shows its own search suggestions based on information stored on your local device (including recent search terms, open tabs, and previously visited URLs). These suggestions may include sponsored suggestions from Mozilla’s partners [...] or relevant URLs that are popular in your country. > Mozilla processes [...] how many searches you perform, how many sponsored suggestions you see and whether you interact with them. > Mozilla collects technical and interaction data, such as the position, size, views and clicks on New Tab content or ads, to understand how people are interacting with our content [...] This data may be shared with our advertising partners on a de-identified or aggregated basis. > we share data across Mozilla-controlled affiliates and subsidiaries. We [...] disclose personal data as part of a corporate transaction, such as a merger, acquisition, sale of assets or similar transaction > [...] retain personal data for more than 25 months, but actual retention periods may vary depending on the type of data and the purpose(s) for which it was collected [Definitions] > Technical data : Device type, operating system, IP address, ISP > Settings: Enhanced Tracking Protection settings, cookie settings, permissions (location, camera, microphone), toolbar customization. > Location : Country code, city. > Precise Location: Your precise location (within a few feet or meters). > Interaction data : How many tabs you have open or what you’ve clicked on. Click counts, impression data, attribution data, how many searches performed, time on page, ad and sponsored tile clicks. > Browsing data: [...] websites and URLs you’ve visited. [...] (travel, shopping, social media), top level domains (example.com) or specific web pages visited.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Based on the parent, all the collected data preserves privacy: > Firefox also shows its own search suggestions based on information stored on your local device That data stays on your computer ... > Mozilla processes [...] how many searches you perform, how many sponsored suggestions you see and whether you interact with them. That description contains no user content: number of searches, number of ads, whether you interact says nothing about you - it doesn't say what you click on or see, just that you clicked. > position, size, views and clicks on New Tab content or ads Again, there is no content mentioned, just number of clicks and not what you click on. > [Definitions] This section defines terms; it doesn't say they are doing anything.
MartijnHols 2y ago
By that definition, wouldn’t sharing total monthly users for the basic purpose of landing some kind of deal (could be as simple as a partnership), constitute “selling data”? Stats like X million monthly users doesn’t appear to conflict with the spirit of the claim, but does conflict with that legal wording.
- crowselect 2y ago
  What part of "we have x million monthly users" is "a consumer’s personal information"? That's information about how many consumers you have, but it's not personal
  - MartijnHols 2y ago
    My mistake, I missed that the data was limited to "personal" information.
  - scottbez1 2y ago
    But, "we have x million monthly users _in Arizona_" would be using your personal data, from a legal standpoint. And if they provide that aggregate data in exchange for money, they are selling your personal data (but not in the way many people think of it, like in a Google/FB sense of building an individualized profile and selling ads against that). Mozilla might be doing very sketchy things with your data, but it's also very plausible that they are doing a reasonable job at anonymization of data but in a way that is still technically classified as selling personal data (in aggregate form).
    - crowselect 2y ago
      I don’t think that’s true: Per: https://thecpra.org/#1798.145(a)(6) https://thecpra.org/#1798.145(a)(6) > Exemptions: > (6) Collect, use, retain, sell, share, or disclose consumers’ personal information that is deidentified or aggregate consumer information. I understand that people who have a vested interest in eroding any possibility of online privacy and data protection would want us to believe these laws are vague and overreaching - but that doesn’t mean they actually are vague and overreaching.
mmooss 2y ago
> According to CA and other states Mozilla is collecting and selling your data. The definition requires Mozilla to do it "in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”". What consideration is Mozilla receiving and from who?
- thisislife2 2y ago
  Personally, any application that even collects personal data is problematic for me. Personal data of a user has a value, and a large repository of personal data, of millions of users, makes the company valuable too. Any data collected can be monetised, if not immediately (as part of the company's business model) or in the future (when the company is sold). With Mozilla, for example, displaying sponsored links using Firefox Suggest ( https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/firefox-suggest/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/fi... ) means collecting and sharing personal data (like search keywords, browsing history or bookmarks). This data sharing, with another company, could either be the raw data or the processed data. In either case, it is a problematic issue for any privacy conscious and politically aware user because either party or multiple parties will (or can) create profiles from the data. "Anonymous" data collection doesn't have any meaning here because with enough data points from a particular user, you can reasonably identify a user (either to track them digitally or to even to identify their personhood in real life, for legal or political reasons). This is easier to do so if you also combine it with data from multiple sources. (Which is what the US NSA programs with US BigTech are doing, and why these companies are so valuable today - Data is the new oil).
  - mmooss 2y ago
    I'm not sure you and they agree on the meaning of collect: If you input personal data into Firefox - e.g., an email you type in a Gmail - then they 'collect' it. Unless you use Firefox only for anonymous purposes, some data must pass through Firefox. > With Mozilla, for example, displaying sponsored links using Firefox Suggest ( https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/fi https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/fi... ) means collecting and sharing personal data (like search keywords, browsing history or bookmarks). That article says it's only opt-in, so you are safe: As always, we believe people should be in control of their web experience, so Firefox Suggest will be a customizable feature. We’ll begin offering smarter contextual suggestions to a percentage of people in the U.S. as an opt-in experience.
nabogh 2y ago
I was under the impression that selling anonymised data would also fall under this category. Either way we need more transparency here.
raverbashing 2y ago
So by that definition, if I click on your profile info here, HN is "selling me your data" no? But anyway, if anyone thinks FF or any other browser can survive without such commercial deals needs to get ready to use Safari or other minor browser
- wtallis 2y ago
  > So by that definition, if I click on your profile info here, HN is "selling me your data" no? What monetary or other valuable consideration does HN get from you when HN serves up someone's profile page to you?
  - fc417fc802 2y ago
    Even if they did, I doubt it qualifies if the consumer intended to post it publicly. There's a difference between selling a book that I published versus selling access to a private draft of a book that I keep in cloud storage and never agreed to let you sell.
uffi 2y ago
I hate to point out the obvious, but when you collect and share with your partners, it’s obviously a polyamorous relationship. I’m appalled at this intrusion of California on the love life of companies.
rtpg 2y ago
I feel like there _is_ some daylight between what people hear when someone says "Firefox is selling your data" and, for example, Firefox using your IP address to put you in a rough country-level geoblock to determine whether to show you an ad that was sold to all users in a country. Yet the second one, which I think would be very much considered close to harmless from my perspective (compared to an alternative of "an ad is shown to everyone across the world"), would, I think, still fit into this metric of your data being sold. Though maybe I'm misinterpreting what the CCPA's breadth would be. I have been a bit disillusioned by FF for some time, and would like for them to figure out some version of a business model in order to survive, and so we can know the contours of that business model. Trying to play "we do not do business things at all" with them constantly shipping weird ad-ful features and stuff like Pocket... let's see if we can make this honest!
- drpossum 2y ago
  > let's see if we can make this honest! They're beholden to who gives them money, which is not us.
  - rtpg 2y ago
    It could be us, either directly with money, or even just indirectly by “being the product” but being able to just walk away. FF exists off of good will and the search deal. The more people stop using the browser the less they’re going to pull in from the deal.
    - drpossum 2y ago
      > FF exists off of good will and the search deal Firefox exists off of google and their antitrust deal.
- eps 2y ago
  > Firefox using your IP address ... to show you an ad Why do you imply that Firefox showing ads is acceptable ?
saghm 2y ago
They also said "Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data”)", and I'm struggling to fathom what they could possibly think that "most people" think selling data could mean other than "giving your data to someone else for compensation", which seems pretty much exactly what the California law says. Yes, it's embedded in some legalese, but surely Mozilla has lawyers?
- fredzel 2y ago
  Most people probably envision selling data akin to shady person trading usb stick in dark alley or hackers selling huge batches of stolen data, so that statement will be true almost by default
  - LoganDark 2y ago
    most people I speak to about this tend to imagine selling data to be like people cold calling you with scams, getting suspicious advertisements that happen to be about stuff you just happened to be saying in the other room (which actually happened), and stuff like that. in Mozilla's case I'm pretty sure it's whatever Pocket is, considering how difficult it is in Firefox to turn that garbage off
- kmacdough 2y ago
  I think they're trying to make the distinction between "we sell your searches and clicks attached to your personal id" and "we sell derivative aggregated information like we have a lot of users of X style to advertise to". But it's kinda hard to sift through exactly what they can and can't sell under this.
  - luckylion 2y ago
    Wouldn't derivative aggregated information not be included in definitions like the one quoted because they specifically about personal data? If you sell the information how many customers you have and how many shoes you've sold last month, are you selling your customer's personal data?
hengheng 2y ago
This binary is known to the State of California to sell data.
xnx 2y ago
Hasn't Mozilla gotten enough money that if they hadn't wasted it they could've been living solely off interest by now?
- koolala 2y ago
  But then they would need to be given more money.
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  $7B was not enough to be "commercially viable" it seems.
- account42 2y ago
  Yes but how could their CEO's family have possibly survived then. You don't want them and the other leadership to starve if they can't have their millions per year, do you?
doright 2y ago
Would it have been better if Firefox/Mozilla went under as a result of never compromising on their principles for income 5 years ago, as opposed to continuing to exist in this less than optimal form today? If the business incompetence of where to put all the existing money were resolved. I feel like the people who understand Mozilla's true principles have long since moved on by this point, and the crowd of those unaware still use Firefox as a daily driver, for better or worse. That crowd might have just moved to Chrome without Firefox as an option anymore. Although, as I understand it Firefox and Chrome will be closer to each other in terms of 3rd-party data selling from now on with this ToS change.
- Idesmi 2y ago
  > the people who understand Mozilla's true principles have long since moved on by this point Where to?
  - dharmab 2y ago
    I'm really liking Orion browser, unfortunately it doesn't support Windows or Linux yet
- yencabulator 2y ago
  Mozilla had $1,006,854,000 invested at end of 2023. Drawing 5% of that annually for developer salaries would pay a lot of Firefox developer salaries, even with no incoming cash whatsoever. I'd like to believe a world exists between "Firefox is a volunteer-only effort" and "Mozilla CEO is yet another sociopath robber baron". https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/mozilla-fdn-2023-fs-final-short-1209.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/mozilla-fdn-202...
- isaacremuant 2y ago
  Mozilla died as a principled company the day they fired Brendan Eich because he had once donated to a cause they didn't agree with. It became all about the authoritarianism of wokeness. They wasted so much money in ridiculous tangents and became extremely partisan and censorious. It's still the best browser due to extensions and customization but it's sad to see these news making it not that better than chrome when it comes to privacy.
KingOfCoders 2y ago
Getting $400M a year is not "commercially viable". But thanks for clearing this up that you want to sell my data. Switched to Waterfox (for now, hope for an independent fork) after 30+ years of Firefox.
- watusername 2y ago
  There is no "independent fork," unless you consider the Chromium skins independent forks too.
jrockway 2y ago
I came here to quote the same sentence and ... yeah, they shouldn't be doing any of this stuff. It's an open source web browser. I type a URL into the URL bar, you send the domain name to my DNS server, then send the rest of the URL to whatever that resolves to, and then you render the content. At no point in this exchange is any oral communication or "valuable consideration" required. Like sorry, if your selling point is "privacy" then you can't show ads on the new tab page. Debian was onto something when they called this software "IceWeasel".
zeckalpha 2y ago
Selling access to be the default search engine could count under this definition, which was Mozilla's primary revenue source for decades.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Wait, what? What part of this definition would include selling a default setting? > 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 Mozilla doesn't need my personal information at all to set a default search engine.
  - zeckalpha 2y ago
    It rents making your personal data available. Under a loose interpretation, which is what they expressed concern about.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
johnklos 2y ago
"other valuable consideration" would be what I'd consider the "transfer" of personal data (DNS lookups, browsing behavior) Mozilla makes to Cloudflare by defaulting United States users to using DNS-over-https without notice. This is the kind of clarification we need, the same way we need actual laws so that companies can't play with the definition of "purchase" to refer to what are actually rentals.

alabastervlog 2y ago

> in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.” JFC, it's funny they try to call this out as some kind of a "weird" definition when that's just... what selling is.

hedora 2y ago
Usually, when I point out that Google sells your data and there’s no possible way to actually opt out, someone replies to say that’s not true, then defines “sell” in some way that most people would disagree with.
WD-42 2y ago
I actually laughed out loud at this. “We can’t say we don’t sell your data because some places have definitions of “sell” that are legally difficult to interpret, for example”: <completely unambiguous definition of selling follows>
- drivingmenuts 2y ago
  That was in California. Presumably, it's worded somewhat differently, and with different intent, elsewhere. 50 states, plus Federal laws, and all the other countries of the world and internal jurisdictions is how many possible variations? And before you say "Yeah, but they all mean mostly the same thing", remember it's lawyers we're dealing with, who will happily charge large sums of money arguing over misplaced punctuation and legislators who will happily take bribes from those same lawyers.
  - Nition 2y ago
    Most people here are assuming that they mentioned that one specifically because it was one of those that Mozilla feels is too broad or difficult. It could be simply read as a random example, but I think that's quite a generous interpretation.
  - wtallis 2y ago
    California was the example they chose to provide. From this, we can reasonably infer that Mozilla does not have a better example handy to illustrate what's wrong with legal definitions around selling user's data. If their best example is completely unconvincing, we should remain unconvinced.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

wwweston 2y ago

Yeah, "Calm down everyone, the only issue here is that certain jurisdictions have sensible definitions that mean we can't legally claim we're not selling data because we are" is arguably clarifying but it's not particularly comforting. Seems safest to assume that if it can be tracked, it will be. And traded too.

85g5gh85g 2y ago
If they intended to clarify wording, they would have added something in place of their original wording instead of deleting it entirely. Legal team isn't slipping like that.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Didn't they do that?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ants_everywhere 2y ago

Mozilla is continuing to dig its own grave

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

tomxor 2y ago

If they would simply tell us what part of Firefox is affected by the CCPA's definition of "selling user data", there would be no room for misinterpretation and this would be over. If it's as innocent as "Firefox has to send HTTP packets to arbitrary web servers to achieve the fundamental function of loading a page" and that web server is considered 3rd party by CCPA, then everyone would understand... this is either poor communication or they are hiding something else (which everyone should rightly assume in this day and age). Just tell us already Mozilla!

chrismorgan 2y ago
From the article: > In order to make Firefox commercially viable, there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar. And remember, they’re citing CCPA’s definition as meaning “… in exchange for ‘monetary’ or ‘other valuable considerations’”. This is exactly what people mean by “selling”. It’s not the innocent thing you’re contemplating, about a browser doing its job. It’s specifically about things like serving ads, making that browser “commercially viable”. Mozilla is stopping claiming they’re never selling your data because they’ve been selling your data for the last few years.
- wtallis 2y ago
  Selling ads isn't even the problem. They could do that and still truthfully, legally claim they never sell your data. Mozilla is helping perpetuate the illusion that online advertising necessarily includes collecting and selling data about the users who are shown the ads.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    AFAIK they do the opposite: They've pioneered ways to target advertising without your data leaving your computer. See for example, https://www.adexchanger.com/privacy/mozilla-acquires-anonym-a-privacy-tech-startup-founded-by-two-top-former-meta-execs/ https://www.adexchanger.com/privacy/mozilla-acquires-anonym-... "That shared mission is predicated on the notion that advertising and privacy are not – or at least don’t have to be – mutually exclusive." And it goes into detail on the investment and technology in that area.

chinathrow 2y ago

Mozilla, then Phoenix, then Firefox user for over 27y or so. If they can't stop abusing their users, I will look for another browser, goddamnit.

JadeNB 2y ago
> If they can't stop abusing their users, I will look for another browser, goddamnit. This seems to go beyond "can't stop" to "are actively plotting a course to continue." I've seen a lot of missteps from Mozilla over the years, but I never thought I'd see them selling my data. From seeing the news yesterday to today, I know now I have to stop recommending Firefox, and figure out a browser that I can trust.
ho_schi 2y ago
They are only three viable web-engines left over from the second browser-war: * Blink (Google): Used in everything, from Chrome, Edge, Opera, Qt-Toolkit, Electron. * Gecko (Mozilla): Firefox. And Waterfox? I assume Gecko is still hard to integrate. * WebKit and WebKitGtk (Apple and Gtk): Safari, Epiphany and Gtk-Toolkit. Easy to integrate. And the only engine where I’m aware that actually two side actively cooperate in development. Epiphany is small and nice, but they need a lot more developers. And I think they should use ffmpeg, gstreamer seems to be a source of issues for many years. But again, they need us, every helper capable of C++ is welcome. Ladybird an another new engine, implemented in C++. But it is in alpha-state, only for developers. Everyone else who tries to show us a new browser means “use that Google thing with another name on it”.
- rapnie 2y ago
  Though not yet ready for the public don't forget the promising https://servo.org https://servo.org (It is very usable already in combination with Tauri as alternative to Electron + Chromium)
- IYasha 2y ago
  Some more: * Librewolf, Palemoon, Falkon.

rdtsc 2y ago

This is a funny case where Mozilla thought they are clarifying their position by pointing out how ridiculously CA defines "sales" only for it to blow up in their face. This is not the first time it happens to companies where in an act of desperation they issue some "apology" or explanation only to make the whole thing worse. Now people will read even more carefully their privacy policy https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/#notice https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/#notice and may find things like: > Firefox also shows its own search suggestions based on information stored on your local device (including recent search terms, open tabs, and previously visited URLs). These suggestions may include sponsored suggestions from Mozilla’s partners [...] or relevant URLs that are popular in your country. > Mozilla processes [...] how many searches you perform, how many sponsored suggestions you see and whether you interact with them. > Mozilla collects technical and interaction data, such as the position, size, views and clicks on New Tab content or ads, to understand how people are interacting with our content [...] This data may be shared with our advertising partners on a de-identified or aggregated basis. > we share data across Mozilla-controlled affiliates and subsidiaries. We [...] disclose personal data as part of a corporate transaction, such as a merger, acquisition, sale of assets or similar transaction > [...] retain personal data for more than 25 months, but actual retention periods may vary depending on the type of data and the purpose(s) for which it was collected [Definitions] > Technical data : Device type, operating system, IP address, ISP > Settings: Enhanced Tracking Protection settings, cookie settings, permissions (location, camera, microphone), toolbar customization. > Location : Country code, city. > Precise Location: Your precise location (within a few feet or meters). > Interaction data : How many tabs you have open or what you’ve clicked on. Click counts, impression data, attribution data, how many searches performed, time on page, ad and sponsored tile clicks. > Browsing data: [...] websites and URLs you’ve visited. [...] (travel, shopping, social media), top level domains (example.com) or specific web pages visited.

mmooss 2y ago
Based on the parent, all the collected data preserves privacy: > Firefox also shows its own search suggestions based on information stored on your local device That data stays on your computer ... > Mozilla processes [...] how many searches you perform, how many sponsored suggestions you see and whether you interact with them. That description contains no user content: number of searches, number of ads, whether you interact says nothing about you - it doesn't say what you click on or see, just that you clicked. > position, size, views and clicks on New Tab content or ads Again, there is no content mentioned, just number of clicks and not what you click on. > [Definitions] This section defines terms; it doesn't say they are doing anything.

MartijnHols 2y ago

By that definition, wouldn’t sharing total monthly users for the basic purpose of landing some kind of deal (could be as simple as a partnership), constitute “selling data”? Stats like X million monthly users doesn’t appear to conflict with the spirit of the claim, but does conflict with that legal wording.

crowselect 2y ago
What part of "we have x million monthly users" is "a consumer’s personal information"? That's information about how many consumers you have, but it's not personal
- MartijnHols 2y ago
  My mistake, I missed that the data was limited to "personal" information.
- scottbez1 2y ago
  But, "we have x million monthly users _in Arizona_" would be using your personal data, from a legal standpoint. And if they provide that aggregate data in exchange for money, they are selling your personal data (but not in the way many people think of it, like in a Google/FB sense of building an individualized profile and selling ads against that). Mozilla might be doing very sketchy things with your data, but it's also very plausible that they are doing a reasonable job at anonymization of data but in a way that is still technically classified as selling personal data (in aggregate form).
  - crowselect 2y ago
    I don’t think that’s true: Per: https://thecpra.org/#1798.145(a)(6) https://thecpra.org/#1798.145(a)(6) > Exemptions: > (6) Collect, use, retain, sell, share, or disclose consumers’ personal information that is deidentified or aggregate consumer information. I understand that people who have a vested interest in eroding any possibility of online privacy and data protection would want us to believe these laws are vague and overreaching - but that doesn’t mean they actually are vague and overreaching.

mmooss 2y ago

> According to CA and other states Mozilla is collecting and selling your data. The definition requires Mozilla to do it "in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”". What consideration is Mozilla receiving and from who?

thisislife2 2y ago
Personally, any application that even collects personal data is problematic for me. Personal data of a user has a value, and a large repository of personal data, of millions of users, makes the company valuable too. Any data collected can be monetised, if not immediately (as part of the company's business model) or in the future (when the company is sold). With Mozilla, for example, displaying sponsored links using Firefox Suggest ( https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/firefox-suggest/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/fi... ) means collecting and sharing personal data (like search keywords, browsing history or bookmarks). This data sharing, with another company, could either be the raw data or the processed data. In either case, it is a problematic issue for any privacy conscious and politically aware user because either party or multiple parties will (or can) create profiles from the data. "Anonymous" data collection doesn't have any meaning here because with enough data points from a particular user, you can reasonably identify a user (either to track them digitally or to even to identify their personhood in real life, for legal or political reasons). This is easier to do so if you also combine it with data from multiple sources. (Which is what the US NSA programs with US BigTech are doing, and why these companies are so valuable today - Data is the new oil).
- mmooss 2y ago
  I'm not sure you and they agree on the meaning of collect: If you input personal data into Firefox - e.g., an email you type in a Gmail - then they 'collect' it. Unless you use Firefox only for anonymous purposes, some data must pass through Firefox. > With Mozilla, for example, displaying sponsored links using Firefox Suggest ( https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/fi https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/fi... ) means collecting and sharing personal data (like search keywords, browsing history or bookmarks). That article says it's only opt-in, so you are safe: As always, we believe people should be in control of their web experience, so Firefox Suggest will be a customizable feature. We’ll begin offering smarter contextual suggestions to a percentage of people in the U.S. as an opt-in experience.

nabogh 2y ago

I was under the impression that selling anonymised data would also fall under this category. Either way we need more transparency here.

raverbashing 2y ago

So by that definition, if I click on your profile info here, HN is "selling me your data" no? But anyway, if anyone thinks FF or any other browser can survive without such commercial deals needs to get ready to use Safari or other minor browser

wtallis 2y ago
> So by that definition, if I click on your profile info here, HN is "selling me your data" no? What monetary or other valuable consideration does HN get from you when HN serves up someone's profile page to you?
- fc417fc802 2y ago
  Even if they did, I doubt it qualifies if the consumer intended to post it publicly. There's a difference between selling a book that I published versus selling access to a private draft of a book that I keep in cloud storage and never agreed to let you sell.

uffi 2y ago

I hate to point out the obvious, but when you collect and share with your partners, it’s obviously a polyamorous relationship. I’m appalled at this intrusion of California on the love life of companies.

rtpg 2y ago

I feel like there _is_ some daylight between what people hear when someone says "Firefox is selling your data" and, for example, Firefox using your IP address to put you in a rough country-level geoblock to determine whether to show you an ad that was sold to all users in a country. Yet the second one, which I think would be very much considered close to harmless from my perspective (compared to an alternative of "an ad is shown to everyone across the world"), would, I think, still fit into this metric of your data being sold. Though maybe I'm misinterpreting what the CCPA's breadth would be. I have been a bit disillusioned by FF for some time, and would like for them to figure out some version of a business model in order to survive, and so we can know the contours of that business model. Trying to play "we do not do business things at all" with them constantly shipping weird ad-ful features and stuff like Pocket... let's see if we can make this honest!

drpossum 2y ago
> let's see if we can make this honest! They're beholden to who gives them money, which is not us.
- rtpg 2y ago
  It could be us, either directly with money, or even just indirectly by “being the product” but being able to just walk away. FF exists off of good will and the search deal. The more people stop using the browser the less they’re going to pull in from the deal.
  - drpossum 2y ago
    > FF exists off of good will and the search deal Firefox exists off of google and their antitrust deal.
eps 2y ago
> Firefox using your IP address ... to show you an ad Why do you imply that Firefox showing ads is acceptable ?

saghm 2y ago

They also said "Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data”)", and I'm struggling to fathom what they could possibly think that "most people" think selling data could mean other than "giving your data to someone else for compensation", which seems pretty much exactly what the California law says. Yes, it's embedded in some legalese, but surely Mozilla has lawyers?

fredzel 2y ago
Most people probably envision selling data akin to shady person trading usb stick in dark alley or hackers selling huge batches of stolen data, so that statement will be true almost by default
- LoganDark 2y ago
  most people I speak to about this tend to imagine selling data to be like people cold calling you with scams, getting suspicious advertisements that happen to be about stuff you just happened to be saying in the other room (which actually happened), and stuff like that. in Mozilla's case I'm pretty sure it's whatever Pocket is, considering how difficult it is in Firefox to turn that garbage off
kmacdough 2y ago
I think they're trying to make the distinction between "we sell your searches and clicks attached to your personal id" and "we sell derivative aggregated information like we have a lot of users of X style to advertise to". But it's kinda hard to sift through exactly what they can and can't sell under this.
- luckylion 2y ago
  Wouldn't derivative aggregated information not be included in definitions like the one quoted because they specifically about personal data? If you sell the information how many customers you have and how many shoes you've sold last month, are you selling your customer's personal data?

hengheng 2y ago

This binary is known to the State of California to sell data.

xnx 2y ago

Hasn't Mozilla gotten enough money that if they hadn't wasted it they could've been living solely off interest by now?

koolala 2y ago
But then they would need to be given more money.
KingOfCoders 2y ago
$7B was not enough to be "commercially viable" it seems.
account42 2y ago
Yes but how could their CEO's family have possibly survived then. You don't want them and the other leadership to starve if they can't have their millions per year, do you?

doright 2y ago

Would it have been better if Firefox/Mozilla went under as a result of never compromising on their principles for income 5 years ago, as opposed to continuing to exist in this less than optimal form today? If the business incompetence of where to put all the existing money were resolved. I feel like the people who understand Mozilla's true principles have long since moved on by this point, and the crowd of those unaware still use Firefox as a daily driver, for better or worse. That crowd might have just moved to Chrome without Firefox as an option anymore. Although, as I understand it Firefox and Chrome will be closer to each other in terms of 3rd-party data selling from now on with this ToS change.

Idesmi 2y ago
> the people who understand Mozilla's true principles have long since moved on by this point Where to?
- dharmab 2y ago
  I'm really liking Orion browser, unfortunately it doesn't support Windows or Linux yet
yencabulator 2y ago
Mozilla had $1,006,854,000 invested at end of 2023. Drawing 5% of that annually for developer salaries would pay a lot of Firefox developer salaries, even with no incoming cash whatsoever. I'd like to believe a world exists between "Firefox is a volunteer-only effort" and "Mozilla CEO is yet another sociopath robber baron". https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/mozilla-fdn-2023-fs-final-short-1209.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/mozilla-fdn-202...
isaacremuant 2y ago
Mozilla died as a principled company the day they fired Brendan Eich because he had once donated to a cause they didn't agree with. It became all about the authoritarianism of wokeness. They wasted so much money in ridiculous tangents and became extremely partisan and censorious. It's still the best browser due to extensions and customization but it's sad to see these news making it not that better than chrome when it comes to privacy.

KingOfCoders 2y ago

Getting $400M a year is not "commercially viable". But thanks for clearing this up that you want to sell my data. Switched to Waterfox (for now, hope for an independent fork) after 30+ years of Firefox.

watusername 2y ago
There is no "independent fork," unless you consider the Chromium skins independent forks too.

jrockway 2y ago

I came here to quote the same sentence and ... yeah, they shouldn't be doing any of this stuff. It's an open source web browser. I type a URL into the URL bar, you send the domain name to my DNS server, then send the rest of the URL to whatever that resolves to, and then you render the content. At no point in this exchange is any oral communication or "valuable consideration" required. Like sorry, if your selling point is "privacy" then you can't show ads on the new tab page. Debian was onto something when they called this software "IceWeasel".

zeckalpha 2y ago

Selling access to be the default search engine could count under this definition, which was Mozilla's primary revenue source for decades.

lolinder 2y ago
Wait, what? What part of this definition would include selling a default setting? > 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 Mozilla doesn't need my personal information at all to set a default search engine.
- zeckalpha 2y ago
  It rents making your personal data available. Under a loose interpretation, which is what they expressed concern about.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

johnklos 2y ago

"other valuable consideration" would be what I'd consider the "transfer" of personal data (DNS lookups, browsing behavior) Mozilla makes to Cloudflare by defaulting United States users to using DNS-over-https without notice. This is the kind of clarification we need, the same way we need actual laws so that companies can't play with the definition of "purchase" to refer to what are actually rentals.