7 ms·

Mozilla rewrites Firefox's Terms of Use after user backlash

86 points by 01-_- 2y ago

sieabahlpark 2y ago
[dead]
Khaine 2y ago
How about the directors and Management who let this happen, resign. We need another phoenix to rise from the ashes of Firefox.
- robshep 2y ago
  I am old enough to get that.
- BSDobelix 2y ago
  Let's fork it and call it Firebird...oh no wait ;)
- bjord 2y ago
  that seems wildly excessive
  - Khaine 2y ago
    Why? Mozilla has been circling the drain for a while with their poor decisions, and questionable privacy practices all while proclaiming to be all about user privacy. Now they have flushed any goodwill they had right down the toilet. As leaders, they need to be held accountable for their poor decisions. Which means they need to fuck off, and let new people come in and rebuild trust.
    - bjord 2y ago
      yes, this was a big screw-up all things considered, but crucifying people for a (relatively straightforward, imo) comms issue just seems...borderline violent? > For instance, Mozilla said it may have removed blanket claims that it never sells user data because the legal definition of “sale of data” is now “broad and evolving,” Mozilla’s blog post stated. > The company pointed to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) as an example of why the language was changed, noting that the 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.” mind you, I sincerely doubt this ever even came across the desks of leadership—if it's legalese compliance bullshit, why would it?
      - rcxdude 2y ago
        It sounds a bit more like they were lying before, frankly, and they were forced to come clean by this act.
        bjord 2y ago
        it sounds like you and I have completely different understandings of the world, so I'm genuinely not sure I can convince you otherwise, but let me give it a shot to oversimplify into a couple points: * people make mistakes, especially in communication—it happens! I misspeak (or often don't fully consider how people with different POVs will interpret what I say differently) all the time, personally * nearly mozilla's entire remaining userbase has stuck around because of mozilla's independence and focus on privacy. everyone with a brain knows full well that selling all user data entered into the browser is the single biggest possible violation of that. therefore, how would mozilla continue to exist as a company in any capacity if that were actually the case? they would have zero users finally, I'll leave you with hanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
        rcxdude 2y ago
        I'm not saying they're selling all data put into the browser, I'm saying they're selling user data, and they were doing so when they were claiming they never sold user data. They (charitably) seem to have convinced themselves that what they were doing was not 'selling' (in a similar way to google 'not selling your data' because they don't just make it available wholesale, they only sell the processed results indirectly through their ad business), but California's new privacy laws makes it obvious they should be calling it 'selling'. They've obvious cocked up the communication of this fact, partly with an overly broad update to their ToS, but even with this walking back they should apologise for misinforming people on this page before.
      - Khaine 2y ago
        You read it as a comms issue. I don't. I read it they have been selling a form of my data. In one, my argument is an overreaction. In the other it is reasonable, given they have been misleading consumers. A strategy which clearly would be oversighted by senior management.
    - bjord 2y ago
      and no, a decent manager shouldn't have to literally review every little thing every single one of their employees does obviously something needs to change here procedurally, but micromanagement across the entire board is not the answer and therefore firing management for this is not really solving anything other than satiating the bloodlust of the mob
- claudex 2y ago
  They are currently with an interim CEO and searching for a new one https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/a-new-chapter-for-mozilla-laura-chambers-expanded-role/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/a-new-chapter-for-mozill...
therein 2y ago
Damage is done. Their intention is clear. Mozilla name is toxic to common-sense privacy now. If they acquired Tailscale, I'd stop using it. If they endorsed ChaCha20, I'd question if it is backdoored.
hysan 2y ago
Dupe? I didn’t see anything from this article that wasn’t already in the previously posted Mozilla blog posts which have already been submitted here.
hulitu 2y ago
> Mozilla rewrites Firefox's Terms of Use after user backlash This looks like a deja-vu of Apple CSAM scanning. "We didn't mean it".
- xeonmc 2y ago
  Or Unity
- mathw 2y ago
  They didn't actually change anything, they just tried to clarify what had made people panic about things they never intended to do. At least, that's how I read it. IANAL.
novemp 2y ago
> The company pointed to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) as an example of why the language was changed, noting that the 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.” ...yeah? That's pretty straightforward.
nonrandomstring 2y ago
Too little too late. I've been deeply studying "trust" for the past year, as part of a project around "Zero Trust". It's a core pillar in cybersecurity. Trust is very complex. Extremely hard won, easy to lose, practically impossible to rebuild. Mozilla have blown it and there's no going back for that company. This is what happens when you let morally defective people take the reigns. My advice would be, dissolve it and use whatever money is left to start new projects for free-software browsers. Mozilla's core major malfunction is that they are deceptive, as an organisational culture. No amount of hard work, careful words, money spent on PR will hide that odour, and whatever goodwill they show now will naturally be undone as they return to business as usual.
- xyproto 2y ago
  What complicates things is that large companies have incentive and resources to try to dissuade users from using completely free and open source browsers. This makes it harder to trust messages about not trusting ie. Firefox.
  - zoobab 2y ago
    You mean bundling the browser with the OS?
  - nonrandomstring 2y ago
    There are certainly many enemies of Mozilla who've used disinformation and exaggeration to agitate against them. From where I stand, Mozilla have done little to deflect that, everything to encourage it and generally been been their own worst enemy. Taking on an operation like running Mozilla is not just running some random tech company that makes a browser. Standing up for software freedom is an ideological stance (in the best possible sense) and requires more capable people who are prepared to dig deeper, work harder, take risk, and stand up for what is right. I do not see those people at Mozilla. Correct me if I'm wrong (and let's have their email) so I can apologise and invite them to discuss why Firefox is no longer a browser that I can trust.
robshep 2y ago
We need to get behind Mozilla and Firefox for the simple reason it is the last bastion on the path to omni-chrome Those who care very deeply about very tight privacy have enough niche options. But I want there to be browser that has enough privacy to be sustainable so there’s a reliable option for me to recommend to family members etc which is holds enough market share for websites to test against. If Firefox’s market share dips any lower website makers won’t support it - testing only against the homogeneity of chrome/edge/safari and then it will become a death spiral and humanity will have taken a step backwards. It’s a case of use it lose it.
- BSDobelix 2y ago
  >We need to get behind Mozilla and Firefox No we need to get rid of Mozilla (the org and the company), transform/fork Firefox and Thunderbird to a community project with (maybe?) a Foundation behind like FreeBSD or Blender. Mozilla's CEO's and Manifesto writers did nothing to support Firefox but fill their own pockets and hype the AI train, I really wonder how much money goes directly into the development of Firefox, if we compare it to the Linux Foundation supporting Linux (the Kernel) it's about 3%, it's probably even less for Mozilla.
  - bjord 2y ago
    if that were truly (sustainably) possible, I'd support it, but imo that'd just be signing ff's death warrant side note, thunderbird is already independent and democratically-managed by the community (as of a few years ago). the way I understand it is that they effectively just use mozilla's resources for legal, logistical stuff
    - BSDobelix 2y ago
      >if that were truly (sustainably) possible, I'd support it, but imo that'd just be signing ff's death warrant I really don't think so, have a look at the ladybird browser: https://ladybird.org/#sponsors https://ladybird.org/#sponsors Or even Servo: https://servo.org/ https://servo.org/
rickdeckard 2y ago
Wow, quite black and white views here. Despite all the justified doubts and concerns, it's also worth noting that Mozilla runs one of the few independent browser engines left, with limited ways to actually fund it. When they're not here anymore, there aren't many parties left to argue about web standards in favor of a free web. So I'd keep watching them as always, without painting them as evil just because of some misstep...
- SapporoChris 2y ago
  Original "The Firefox Browser is the only major browser backed by a not-for-profit that doesn’t sell your personal data to advertisers while helping you protect your personal information." Now just says. "The Firefox Browser, the only major browser backed by a not-for-profit, helps you protect your personal information." This is not some misstep, it is the breaking of a promise.
  - eagle2com 2y ago
    I would say they are changing the promise, not breaking it. Breaking it would have been if they sold data with the old description (which is not the case, is it?).
    - JohnFen 2y ago
      Since they claim that they are not changing the promise, only being more clear about it, the implication is that they did sell data under the old description.
  - chownie 2y ago
    The definition of the word "sell" has a different meaning in a post-AI world and in specific California have a new bill adding some other contexts to it, so despite not actually doing anything differently (go and look at the Firefox source tree if you don't believe me) they have to change their wording. ETA: Setting Google as their default search engine in exchange for funding from Google has been cited as an example of "selling user data to Google", if you'd like a concrete example of what I'm talking about.
mdp2021 2y ago
Please, directly skip to the real announcement: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms... The actual content: > [Given that the definition of "selling" in legal terms can be slippery, we must be aware of not falling in cases like the following:] 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. We set all of this out in our Privacy Notice. Whenever we share data with our partners, we put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share is stripped of potentially identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP)
- zoobab 2y ago
  No thank you. Fork.
  - chownie 2y ago
    You're forking the FAQ? Because that's the only thing that's actually changed here.
  - distances 2y ago
    There's no chance I would be able to recommend some Waterfox or Iceweasel to family or friends. Current status is Chrome or Firefox, and there's a long long way ahead for anything else to become relevant. Death of Firefox would mean immediate death of all the forks too.
    - nickthegreek 2y ago
      Zen is perfectly usable by your family.
      - distances 2y ago
        Browser is such a critical piece of software that it has to be established, with a large and accomplished dev team. Which practically means a budget in the millions at least. Anything smaller I could use myself, but would absolutely never recommend to others. As I said, current mainstream enough options are only Firefox or Chrome.
rhdunn 2y ago
This is even more confusing. I understand that the browser needs to know my primary language and will send that as part of the HTTP requests (e.g. as part of the Accept-Language header) in order to operate ("To provide you with the Firefox browser"). I don't know why Mozilla needs a license for this. They are not clear where/how the data is being used. For example, why are "Unique identifiers" and "Interaction data" part of "To provide you with the Firefox browser"? From "Interaction data": "This is data about how you engage with our services, such as how many tabs you have open or what you’ve clicked on." -- Why is it necessary to track how many tabs I have open in order to provide the browser to me? -- That isn't something they need to send via HTTP to make websites function. If it is for telemetry and improving the browser, that should be a separate section.
- braiamp 2y ago
  > You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license *for the purpose of doing as you request* with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content. They are saying that you give a license to Firefox to do as you request. That's all. The language is explicit and explain the relationship between you and the product when you use it. The product behaves as your agent, and would need permissions to do so. Every browser implies this, Firefox just was explicit with it.
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    It still doesn't make sense unless that info is going via mozilla's servers. Software running on your PC doesn't need permission to process and send data that you are giving it, to send it to the places you intend.
    - chownie 2y ago
      Mozilla legal apparently think otherwise. They have been spooked by the recent California legal movements which can apply the label "sell" to behaviours we wouldn't normally consider selling user data, like setting the default search engine.
tarkin2 2y ago
So isn't this a good thing? The comments on here are more overwrought than rational and disinterested...
- NoboruWataya 2y ago
  I honestly don't understand the insane levels of hate that Mozilla gets on HN and certain other corners of the internet. More than the most evil corporations on earth. I can only assume some of it is politically driven. Firefox and Thunderbird are two of the last bastions of functional, accessible FOSS software in their respective spaces. The software landscape would be a lot more bleak without them. It's important to hold Mozilla to account given their role (and this TOS roll-out was clearly a screw-up whatever way you look at it) but the amount of people jumping in saying that they are irredeemable now, that we must now stop using their software even if they backtrack on this, is counterproductive. And honestly I suspect a lot of the people saying that have also been saying it for years before any of this happened.
  - dwoldrich 2y ago
    Mozilla's move synergizes with the surveillance security state that the previous admins were trying to fortify here. I understand Mozilla Corporation has to sell out to continue receiving funding, I just choose not to participate. Everything dies.
godelski 2y ago
People need to resign It's insane to think Firefox would ever have gone this route? How disconnected is management? The move would be suicide! A major reason people use Firefox is because of privacy. The other major reason is because a user's privacy conscious child or grandchild installed it for them. That's your whole fucking userbase! It's a shame too because they had the opportunity to double down on privacy. What with Apple caving to governments. I was a fanboy who's been with you for nearly two decades You can check my comment history. I defended you through tough times, I've donated, and for what? A slap in the face. You had it going with the rust rewrite and just floundered on every opportunity. You made Thunderbird pretty good and gave many hope, then floundered. You have some great devs, let them make great software So where do we go now? What browser that isn't just a different color of chrome? Safari? No. Ladybird? Sea Monkey?
- dwoldrich 2y ago
  They sold out, Mozilla in name only. My plan is to switch my family to librewolf on Desktop and Brave on Mobile until better options appear. I'm a bit bitter about it. I've often been the only person in my org that insisted on Firefox. _Exactly_ as you say, like a virus, whenever I visit family I will be switching out their browsers from Firefox to the next best thing.
thinkingemote 2y ago
Optics. Mozilla bungled the optics, then in their reaction, bungled it some more! They do not look good here. We respond to looks. In objective reality it's a bit of much ado about nothing, but in today's world it's optics and perception that rules. It's subjective. As another comment says it takes forever to gain trust and a moment to lose it all. Trust is subjective.
cedws 2y ago
Why does Mozilla keep falling into the trap of bringing these crappy MBAs into their leadership? Promote real ambassadors of privacy and open software instead of people like the current interim CEO, who is ex-McKinsey. If they can't manage that then maybe it's finally time to let Mozilla go. Andreas Kling's browser project sounds like it's coming along well.
- squarefoot 2y ago
  They're essentially owned by Google through a contract both cannot refuse, because it keeps the "Google isn't a monopoly" narrative while allowing Mozilla to stay afloat, therefore I wouldn't expect them to do anything that could harm the agreement with Google, like real competition.
methou 2y ago
The whole thing confuses me is that why would Firefox as an browser (user agent) need that legal jargon to work. Hopefully Legal Eagle or similar channels would cover this, but they are too busy with politics at the moment?
- qiqitori 2y ago
  Time to sue Intel for releasing chips that process our inputs as we request.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    Well, no, see that's a great example of why this is a problem. If Intel sells you a CPU, it doesn't need a license to your data, because you give your data to your CPU in your computer. It would, in fact, be a huge red flag if Intel suddenly wanted a license to process your data, because they only need that if they're sending your data to them for processing. (IANAL, corrections welcome if you can actually point to a law that says otherwise)
    - qiqitori 2y ago
      Sorry, I meant my comment to be taken sarcastically. I agree with everything you said.
braiamp 2y ago
I would love that detractors explain what data is being sold, exactly. Because it's the same data that you have willingly given them by using their _services_. The only change with the product is "for the purpose of doing as you request", which is the definition of an User Agent.
- rcxdude 2y ago
  Sounds like the blog post shows that they are explicitly selling user data. Specifically data relating to the ads they show in the browser. They claim it's carefully anonymised and aggregated, but they are selling it nonetheless. The blog post is a nonsequitar with the claims in the updated 'TOS', which make no sense because they don't need a license for an executable on your PC to process and send data to the website's your visiting in line with what's expected of a web browser, only a license if they are also sending it to themselves or on behalf of themselves, which is not "what you intend" if you visit a web page or just open up a new tab.
  - braiamp 2y ago
    > because they don't need a license for an executable on your PC to process and send data to the website's your visiting in line with what's expected of a web browser You actually do. It's implied that by using the software you give it to the software to act to your agent, but you actually do have it. In court you would have to establish this behavior using context. Mozilla avoids all of that by making it explicit. > only a license if they are also sending it to themselves or on behalf of themselves Which again, the license still doesn't allow.
    - rcxdude 2y ago
      >In court you would have to establish this behavior using context. Under what law? As far as I know neither copyright nor the various privacy laws care about what an executable on the user's machine is doing, as far as the liability of the company goes. They only care about what the company sees. >Which again, the license still doesn't allow. Which is why it doesn't make sense, especially when their privacy policy does spell out that they are selling data collected from the browser (not very much, but there certainly is some)
powersnail 2y ago
It seems like what is happening is not Firefox now making a pivot to the privacy unfriendly side, but Firefox has already been selling data, but in a manner that---for whatever strange reason---they didn't consider to qualify as "selling data", and hence the original Terms of Use included the promise of "We never sell your data". Then lawyers came along and told them that this just wouldn't fly legally, and they have to change their terms now. Even now, Firefox still doesn't consider what they do "selling data", and they are forced to change the wording only because the laws are weird. Frankly, I just don't see how sharing data to partners to make yourself commercially viable can be construed as not selling data. In their own words, what Firefox does is: > 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. We could argue about whether the laws are slippery or over-reaching, or how responsible or not Firefox has been handling user data. We could argue about how much anonymization and aggregation of data reduce privacy concerns. But to argue that the above action is not "selling data" is in my view not a reasonable position.
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
Another TechCrunch [dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612
JohnFen 2y ago
> For instance, Mozilla said it may have removed blanket claims that it never sells user data because the legal definition of “sale of data” is now “broad and evolving,” Mozilla’s blog post stated. > The company pointed to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) as an example of why the language was changed, noting that the 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.” Wow, I'm actually stunned that Mozilla straight-up admits that they're selling user data here and that's why they removed that language. Good for them for being honest. Bad on them for selling user data.
skeaker 2y ago
The guys at Chromium must be having a huge party right now with how well this coincides with the deprecation of Manifest V3 hitting the average user.

86 points by 01-_- 2y ago

[dead]

How about the directors and Management who let this happen, resign. We need another phoenix to rise from the ashes of Firefox.

robshep 2y ago
I am old enough to get that.
BSDobelix 2y ago
Let's fork it and call it Firebird...oh no wait ;)
bjord 2y ago
that seems wildly excessive
- Khaine 2y ago
  Why? Mozilla has been circling the drain for a while with their poor decisions, and questionable privacy practices all while proclaiming to be all about user privacy. Now they have flushed any goodwill they had right down the toilet. As leaders, they need to be held accountable for their poor decisions. Which means they need to fuck off, and let new people come in and rebuild trust.
  - bjord 2y ago
    yes, this was a big screw-up all things considered, but crucifying people for a (relatively straightforward, imo) comms issue just seems...borderline violent? > For instance, Mozilla said it may have removed blanket claims that it never sells user data because the legal definition of “sale of data” is now “broad and evolving,” Mozilla’s blog post stated. > The company pointed to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) as an example of why the language was changed, noting that the 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.” mind you, I sincerely doubt this ever even came across the desks of leadership—if it's legalese compliance bullshit, why would it?
    - rcxdude 2y ago
      It sounds a bit more like they were lying before, frankly, and they were forced to come clean by this act.
      - bjord 2y ago
        it sounds like you and I have completely different understandings of the world, so I'm genuinely not sure I can convince you otherwise, but let me give it a shot to oversimplify into a couple points: * people make mistakes, especially in communication—it happens! I misspeak (or often don't fully consider how people with different POVs will interpret what I say differently) all the time, personally * nearly mozilla's entire remaining userbase has stuck around because of mozilla's independence and focus on privacy. everyone with a brain knows full well that selling all user data entered into the browser is the single biggest possible violation of that. therefore, how would mozilla continue to exist as a company in any capacity if that were actually the case? they would have zero users finally, I'll leave you with hanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
        rcxdude 2y ago
        I'm not saying they're selling all data put into the browser, I'm saying they're selling user data, and they were doing so when they were claiming they never sold user data. They (charitably) seem to have convinced themselves that what they were doing was not 'selling' (in a similar way to google 'not selling your data' because they don't just make it available wholesale, they only sell the processed results indirectly through their ad business), but California's new privacy laws makes it obvious they should be calling it 'selling'. They've obvious cocked up the communication of this fact, partly with an overly broad update to their ToS, but even with this walking back they should apologise for misinforming people on this page before.
    - Khaine 2y ago
      You read it as a comms issue. I don't. I read it they have been selling a form of my data. In one, my argument is an overreaction. In the other it is reasonable, given they have been misleading consumers. A strategy which clearly would be oversighted by senior management.
  - bjord 2y ago
    and no, a decent manager shouldn't have to literally review every little thing every single one of their employees does obviously something needs to change here procedurally, but micromanagement across the entire board is not the answer and therefore firing management for this is not really solving anything other than satiating the bloodlust of the mob
claudex 2y ago
They are currently with an interim CEO and searching for a new one https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/a-new-chapter-for-mozilla-laura-chambers-expanded-role/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/a-new-chapter-for-mozill...

therein 2y ago

Damage is done. Their intention is clear. Mozilla name is toxic to common-sense privacy now. If they acquired Tailscale, I'd stop using it. If they endorsed ChaCha20, I'd question if it is backdoored.

hysan 2y ago

Dupe? I didn’t see anything from this article that wasn’t already in the previously posted Mozilla blog posts which have already been submitted here.

hulitu 2y ago

> Mozilla rewrites Firefox's Terms of Use after user backlash This looks like a deja-vu of Apple CSAM scanning. "We didn't mean it".

xeonmc 2y ago
Or Unity
mathw 2y ago
They didn't actually change anything, they just tried to clarify what had made people panic about things they never intended to do. At least, that's how I read it. IANAL.

novemp 2y ago

> The company pointed to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) as an example of why the language was changed, noting that the 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.” ...yeah? That's pretty straightforward.

nonrandomstring 2y ago

Too little too late. I've been deeply studying "trust" for the past year, as part of a project around "Zero Trust". It's a core pillar in cybersecurity. Trust is very complex. Extremely hard won, easy to lose, practically impossible to rebuild. Mozilla have blown it and there's no going back for that company. This is what happens when you let morally defective people take the reigns. My advice would be, dissolve it and use whatever money is left to start new projects for free-software browsers. Mozilla's core major malfunction is that they are deceptive, as an organisational culture. No amount of hard work, careful words, money spent on PR will hide that odour, and whatever goodwill they show now will naturally be undone as they return to business as usual.

xyproto 2y ago
What complicates things is that large companies have incentive and resources to try to dissuade users from using completely free and open source browsers. This makes it harder to trust messages about not trusting ie. Firefox.
- zoobab 2y ago
  You mean bundling the browser with the OS?
- nonrandomstring 2y ago
  There are certainly many enemies of Mozilla who've used disinformation and exaggeration to agitate against them. From where I stand, Mozilla have done little to deflect that, everything to encourage it and generally been been their own worst enemy. Taking on an operation like running Mozilla is not just running some random tech company that makes a browser. Standing up for software freedom is an ideological stance (in the best possible sense) and requires more capable people who are prepared to dig deeper, work harder, take risk, and stand up for what is right. I do not see those people at Mozilla. Correct me if I'm wrong (and let's have their email) so I can apologise and invite them to discuss why Firefox is no longer a browser that I can trust.

robshep 2y ago

We need to get behind Mozilla and Firefox for the simple reason it is the last bastion on the path to omni-chrome Those who care very deeply about very tight privacy have enough niche options. But I want there to be browser that has enough privacy to be sustainable so there’s a reliable option for me to recommend to family members etc which is holds enough market share for websites to test against. If Firefox’s market share dips any lower website makers won’t support it - testing only against the homogeneity of chrome/edge/safari and then it will become a death spiral and humanity will have taken a step backwards. It’s a case of use it lose it.

BSDobelix 2y ago
>We need to get behind Mozilla and Firefox No we need to get rid of Mozilla (the org and the company), transform/fork Firefox and Thunderbird to a community project with (maybe?) a Foundation behind like FreeBSD or Blender. Mozilla's CEO's and Manifesto writers did nothing to support Firefox but fill their own pockets and hype the AI train, I really wonder how much money goes directly into the development of Firefox, if we compare it to the Linux Foundation supporting Linux (the Kernel) it's about 3%, it's probably even less for Mozilla.
- bjord 2y ago
  if that were truly (sustainably) possible, I'd support it, but imo that'd just be signing ff's death warrant side note, thunderbird is already independent and democratically-managed by the community (as of a few years ago). the way I understand it is that they effectively just use mozilla's resources for legal, logistical stuff
  - BSDobelix 2y ago
    >if that were truly (sustainably) possible, I'd support it, but imo that'd just be signing ff's death warrant I really don't think so, have a look at the ladybird browser: https://ladybird.org/#sponsors https://ladybird.org/#sponsors Or even Servo: https://servo.org/ https://servo.org/

rickdeckard 2y ago

Wow, quite black and white views here. Despite all the justified doubts and concerns, it's also worth noting that Mozilla runs one of the few independent browser engines left, with limited ways to actually fund it. When they're not here anymore, there aren't many parties left to argue about web standards in favor of a free web. So I'd keep watching them as always, without painting them as evil just because of some misstep...

SapporoChris 2y ago
Original "The Firefox Browser is the only major browser backed by a not-for-profit that doesn’t sell your personal data to advertisers while helping you protect your personal information." Now just says. "The Firefox Browser, the only major browser backed by a not-for-profit, helps you protect your personal information." This is not some misstep, it is the breaking of a promise.
- eagle2com 2y ago
  I would say they are changing the promise, not breaking it. Breaking it would have been if they sold data with the old description (which is not the case, is it?).
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    Since they claim that they are not changing the promise, only being more clear about it, the implication is that they did sell data under the old description.
- chownie 2y ago
  The definition of the word "sell" has a different meaning in a post-AI world and in specific California have a new bill adding some other contexts to it, so despite not actually doing anything differently (go and look at the Firefox source tree if you don't believe me) they have to change their wording. ETA: Setting Google as their default search engine in exchange for funding from Google has been cited as an example of "selling user data to Google", if you'd like a concrete example of what I'm talking about.

mdp2021 2y ago

Please, directly skip to the real announcement: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms... The actual content: > [Given that the definition of "selling" in legal terms can be slippery, we must be aware of not falling in cases like the following:] 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. We set all of this out in our Privacy Notice. Whenever we share data with our partners, we put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share is stripped of potentially identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP)

zoobab 2y ago
No thank you. Fork.
- chownie 2y ago
  You're forking the FAQ? Because that's the only thing that's actually changed here.
- distances 2y ago
  There's no chance I would be able to recommend some Waterfox or Iceweasel to family or friends. Current status is Chrome or Firefox, and there's a long long way ahead for anything else to become relevant. Death of Firefox would mean immediate death of all the forks too.
  - nickthegreek 2y ago
    Zen is perfectly usable by your family.
    - distances 2y ago
      Browser is such a critical piece of software that it has to be established, with a large and accomplished dev team. Which practically means a budget in the millions at least. Anything smaller I could use myself, but would absolutely never recommend to others. As I said, current mainstream enough options are only Firefox or Chrome.

rhdunn 2y ago

This is even more confusing. I understand that the browser needs to know my primary language and will send that as part of the HTTP requests (e.g. as part of the Accept-Language header) in order to operate ("To provide you with the Firefox browser"). I don't know why Mozilla needs a license for this. They are not clear where/how the data is being used. For example, why are "Unique identifiers" and "Interaction data" part of "To provide you with the Firefox browser"? From "Interaction data": "This is data about how you engage with our services, such as how many tabs you have open or what you’ve clicked on." -- Why is it necessary to track how many tabs I have open in order to provide the browser to me? -- That isn't something they need to send via HTTP to make websites function. If it is for telemetry and improving the browser, that should be a separate section.

braiamp 2y ago
> You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license *for the purpose of doing as you request* with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content. They are saying that you give a license to Firefox to do as you request. That's all. The language is explicit and explain the relationship between you and the product when you use it. The product behaves as your agent, and would need permissions to do so. Every browser implies this, Firefox just was explicit with it.
- rcxdude 2y ago
  It still doesn't make sense unless that info is going via mozilla's servers. Software running on your PC doesn't need permission to process and send data that you are giving it, to send it to the places you intend.
  - chownie 2y ago
    Mozilla legal apparently think otherwise. They have been spooked by the recent California legal movements which can apply the label "sell" to behaviours we wouldn't normally consider selling user data, like setting the default search engine.

tarkin2 2y ago

So isn't this a good thing? The comments on here are more overwrought than rational and disinterested...

NoboruWataya 2y ago
I honestly don't understand the insane levels of hate that Mozilla gets on HN and certain other corners of the internet. More than the most evil corporations on earth. I can only assume some of it is politically driven. Firefox and Thunderbird are two of the last bastions of functional, accessible FOSS software in their respective spaces. The software landscape would be a lot more bleak without them. It's important to hold Mozilla to account given their role (and this TOS roll-out was clearly a screw-up whatever way you look at it) but the amount of people jumping in saying that they are irredeemable now, that we must now stop using their software even if they backtrack on this, is counterproductive. And honestly I suspect a lot of the people saying that have also been saying it for years before any of this happened.
- dwoldrich 2y ago
  Mozilla's move synergizes with the surveillance security state that the previous admins were trying to fortify here. I understand Mozilla Corporation has to sell out to continue receiving funding, I just choose not to participate. Everything dies.

godelski 2y ago

People need to resign It's insane to think Firefox would ever have gone this route? How disconnected is management? The move would be suicide! A major reason people use Firefox is because of privacy. The other major reason is because a user's privacy conscious child or grandchild installed it for them. That's your whole fucking userbase! It's a shame too because they had the opportunity to double down on privacy. What with Apple caving to governments. I was a fanboy who's been with you for nearly two decades You can check my comment history. I defended you through tough times, I've donated, and for what? A slap in the face. You had it going with the rust rewrite and just floundered on every opportunity. You made Thunderbird pretty good and gave many hope, then floundered. You have some great devs, let them make great software So where do we go now? What browser that isn't just a different color of chrome? Safari? No. Ladybird? Sea Monkey?

dwoldrich 2y ago
They sold out, Mozilla in name only. My plan is to switch my family to librewolf on Desktop and Brave on Mobile until better options appear. I'm a bit bitter about it. I've often been the only person in my org that insisted on Firefox. _Exactly_ as you say, like a virus, whenever I visit family I will be switching out their browsers from Firefox to the next best thing.

thinkingemote 2y ago

Optics. Mozilla bungled the optics, then in their reaction, bungled it some more! They do not look good here. We respond to looks. In objective reality it's a bit of much ado about nothing, but in today's world it's optics and perception that rules. It's subjective. As another comment says it takes forever to gain trust and a moment to lose it all. Trust is subjective.

cedws 2y ago

Why does Mozilla keep falling into the trap of bringing these crappy MBAs into their leadership? Promote real ambassadors of privacy and open software instead of people like the current interim CEO, who is ex-McKinsey. If they can't manage that then maybe it's finally time to let Mozilla go. Andreas Kling's browser project sounds like it's coming along well.

squarefoot 2y ago
They're essentially owned by Google through a contract both cannot refuse, because it keeps the "Google isn't a monopoly" narrative while allowing Mozilla to stay afloat, therefore I wouldn't expect them to do anything that could harm the agreement with Google, like real competition.

methou 2y ago

The whole thing confuses me is that why would Firefox as an browser (user agent) need that legal jargon to work. Hopefully Legal Eagle or similar channels would cover this, but they are too busy with politics at the moment?

qiqitori 2y ago
Time to sue Intel for releasing chips that process our inputs as we request.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  Well, no, see that's a great example of why this is a problem. If Intel sells you a CPU, it doesn't need a license to your data, because you give your data to your CPU in your computer. It would, in fact, be a huge red flag if Intel suddenly wanted a license to process your data, because they only need that if they're sending your data to them for processing. (IANAL, corrections welcome if you can actually point to a law that says otherwise)
  - qiqitori 2y ago
    Sorry, I meant my comment to be taken sarcastically. I agree with everything you said.

braiamp 2y ago

I would love that detractors explain what data is being sold, exactly. Because it's the same data that you have willingly given them by using their _services_. The only change with the product is "for the purpose of doing as you request", which is the definition of an User Agent.

rcxdude 2y ago
Sounds like the blog post shows that they are explicitly selling user data. Specifically data relating to the ads they show in the browser. They claim it's carefully anonymised and aggregated, but they are selling it nonetheless. The blog post is a nonsequitar with the claims in the updated 'TOS', which make no sense because they don't need a license for an executable on your PC to process and send data to the website's your visiting in line with what's expected of a web browser, only a license if they are also sending it to themselves or on behalf of themselves, which is not "what you intend" if you visit a web page or just open up a new tab.
- braiamp 2y ago
  > because they don't need a license for an executable on your PC to process and send data to the website's your visiting in line with what's expected of a web browser You actually do. It's implied that by using the software you give it to the software to act to your agent, but you actually do have it. In court you would have to establish this behavior using context. Mozilla avoids all of that by making it explicit. > only a license if they are also sending it to themselves or on behalf of themselves Which again, the license still doesn't allow.
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    >In court you would have to establish this behavior using context. Under what law? As far as I know neither copyright nor the various privacy laws care about what an executable on the user's machine is doing, as far as the liability of the company goes. They only care about what the company sees. >Which again, the license still doesn't allow. Which is why it doesn't make sense, especially when their privacy policy does spell out that they are selling data collected from the browser (not very much, but there certainly is some)

powersnail 2y ago

It seems like what is happening is not Firefox now making a pivot to the privacy unfriendly side, but Firefox has already been selling data, but in a manner that---for whatever strange reason---they didn't consider to qualify as "selling data", and hence the original Terms of Use included the promise of "We never sell your data". Then lawyers came along and told them that this just wouldn't fly legally, and they have to change their terms now. Even now, Firefox still doesn't consider what they do "selling data", and they are forced to change the wording only because the laws are weird. Frankly, I just don't see how sharing data to partners to make yourself commercially viable can be construed as not selling data. In their own words, what Firefox does is: > 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. We could argue about whether the laws are slippery or over-reaching, or how responsible or not Firefox has been handling user data. We could argue about how much anonymization and aggregation of data reduce privacy concerns. But to argue that the above action is not "selling data" is in my view not a reasonable position.

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

Another TechCrunch [dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612

JohnFen 2y ago

> For instance, Mozilla said it may have removed blanket claims that it never sells user data because the legal definition of “sale of data” is now “broad and evolving,” Mozilla’s blog post stated. > The company pointed to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) as an example of why the language was changed, noting that the 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.” Wow, I'm actually stunned that Mozilla straight-up admits that they're selling user data here and that's why they removed that language. Good for them for being honest. Bad on them for selling user data.

skeaker 2y ago

The guys at Chromium must be having a huge party right now with how well this coincides with the deprecation of Manifest V3 hitting the average user.