4 ms·

This was discussed before on HN.: > in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. As an example, the California Consumer Privac

by troupo 2y ago

This was discussed before on HN.: > 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... And then they go on to describe what a common-sense definition of a sale is. There's nothing broad or slippery about the example, so yes, they basically say "we're going to sell your data"

chownie 2y ago
This leaves out the important part, nothing has actually changed. This is entirely a rewording for what they're currently doing and have been doing for years. If it's such an outrage worthy subject why did no one explode about this when they added the sponsored links years ago?
- troupo 2y ago
  > why did no one explode about this when they added the sponsored links years ago? There was a lot of discussion and consternation about this as well.
- nickthegreek 2y ago
  The nothing has actually changed cannot be known. There is no transparency here. This is just what you think based off of their weirdly worded statements. Many people were outraged over the sponsored links here on this very site.
  - chownie 2y ago
    We can tell that nothing materially has changed because people are linking git diffs of the FAQ and no one is linking to any changes in the source code, which is equally as available. From that perspective it's super transparent, if you bother to look.
    - nickthegreek 2y ago
      They released the source code for their server infrastructure where the data they collect is sent so we can verify that? Oh let me check... nope. If only they didnt collect the data there would be no trust issues.
      - chownie 2y ago
        You appear to be going off the rails -- this entire debacle is about Firefox, which runs locally on your machine, you can see if they're collecting different data (they aren't) or sending it somewhere else (they aren't). There's no evidence they're doing anything with any data and there never was. All of this outrage is purely centered on a ToS update which they've since refactored in response.
        nickthegreek 2y ago
        Sir, they are 100% taking data from your machine and sending it else where. There are literally forks of the browser made solely to prevent it. You are either incapable of having a discussion in good faith or actively have your fingers in your ears. You continue to post untruths throughout this comment section.
BSDobelix 2y ago
>"we're going to sell your data" And: >>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. So now we can use your photo of your birthday party that you sent via webmail... but don't worry, we don't own it, you just gave us a "non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license".
- chownie 2y ago
  > So now we can use your photo of your birthday party that you sent via webmail Please read the second half of the text you quoted, where it says "for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox." I cannot find a nicer way to say this, but a lot of people in these threads are essentially winding themselves up and then producing rubbish like this to fuel their own anger. Mozilla have been clumsy sure, but this collective tantrum as a response makes zero sense especially now with given context it's clear they're not doing anything they haven't been doing for years.
  - BSDobelix 2y ago
    >>for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. So you "Mozilla" license my data, but i am still allowed todo anything with my data..but so are you (Mozilla) right? What are you trying to explain here? Why do you think open source software, or any software for that matter, should have the right to put a license on MY data? You (the software) are the processor, not the creator, they want to change that by feeding a processor to create an AI creator based on wetware creations...for free. Imagine a Mill, Lathe or 3D-Printer would do that.
    - chownie 2y ago
      > they want to change that by feeding a processor to create an AI creator based on wetware creations...for free. This is actually more of what I was talking about, making stuff up to make yourself angrier. Where are they doing anything AI related with your data? Where's the proof? There's none, because they're not, it's something you've come up with just now out of literal thin air. Let's examine the actual wording in excruciating detail because apparently that's needed > It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. Non-exclusive: The right they claim doesn't stop you or anyone else from claiming the same or similar rights. Royalty free: They won't pay you for it. Worldwide: It doesn't matter which jurisdiction you're in. "Doing as you request in Firefox": Carrying out operations which might mean moving your data from your local machine to a remote one, such as making web requests with requests bodies formed from data you've input. In total: This means they have the non-exclusive right, without need for payment from you and no matter where you are in the world, for Firefox to do what you've asked it to do with your data. When you posted this comment, that was you telling Firefox to move some data to the internet for you. That is what this legal text and the right they claim provides to you. In the old internet they didn't need to write any legalese for this, their legal team think they might need to now because the landscape has changed. That's it. > Imagine a Mill, Lathe or 3D-Printer would do that. If your mill, lathe or 3d printer could publish your data to the internet I guarantee you with 100% certainty they would include licensing text accomplishing roughly the same thing.

by troupo 2y ago

chownie 2y ago

This leaves out the important part, nothing has actually changed. This is entirely a rewording for what they're currently doing and have been doing for years. If it's such an outrage worthy subject why did no one explode about this when they added the sponsored links years ago?

troupo 2y ago
> why did no one explode about this when they added the sponsored links years ago? There was a lot of discussion and consternation about this as well.
nickthegreek 2y ago
The nothing has actually changed cannot be known. There is no transparency here. This is just what you think based off of their weirdly worded statements. Many people were outraged over the sponsored links here on this very site.
- chownie 2y ago
  We can tell that nothing materially has changed because people are linking git diffs of the FAQ and no one is linking to any changes in the source code, which is equally as available. From that perspective it's super transparent, if you bother to look.
  - nickthegreek 2y ago
    They released the source code for their server infrastructure where the data they collect is sent so we can verify that? Oh let me check... nope. If only they didnt collect the data there would be no trust issues.
    - chownie 2y ago
      You appear to be going off the rails -- this entire debacle is about Firefox, which runs locally on your machine, you can see if they're collecting different data (they aren't) or sending it somewhere else (they aren't). There's no evidence they're doing anything with any data and there never was. All of this outrage is purely centered on a ToS update which they've since refactored in response.
      - nickthegreek 2y ago
        Sir, they are 100% taking data from your machine and sending it else where. There are literally forks of the browser made solely to prevent it. You are either incapable of having a discussion in good faith or actively have your fingers in your ears. You continue to post untruths throughout this comment section.

BSDobelix 2y ago

>"we're going to sell your data" And: >>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. So now we can use your photo of your birthday party that you sent via webmail... but don't worry, we don't own it, you just gave us a "non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license".

chownie 2y ago
> So now we can use your photo of your birthday party that you sent via webmail Please read the second half of the text you quoted, where it says "for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox." I cannot find a nicer way to say this, but a lot of people in these threads are essentially winding themselves up and then producing rubbish like this to fuel their own anger. Mozilla have been clumsy sure, but this collective tantrum as a response makes zero sense especially now with given context it's clear they're not doing anything they haven't been doing for years.
- BSDobelix 2y ago
  >>for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. So you "Mozilla" license my data, but i am still allowed todo anything with my data..but so are you (Mozilla) right? What are you trying to explain here? Why do you think open source software, or any software for that matter, should have the right to put a license on MY data? You (the software) are the processor, not the creator, they want to change that by feeding a processor to create an AI creator based on wetware creations...for free. Imagine a Mill, Lathe or 3D-Printer would do that.
  - chownie 2y ago
    > they want to change that by feeding a processor to create an AI creator based on wetware creations...for free. This is actually more of what I was talking about, making stuff up to make yourself angrier. Where are they doing anything AI related with your data? Where's the proof? There's none, because they're not, it's something you've come up with just now out of literal thin air. Let's examine the actual wording in excruciating detail because apparently that's needed > It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. Non-exclusive: The right they claim doesn't stop you or anyone else from claiming the same or similar rights. Royalty free: They won't pay you for it. Worldwide: It doesn't matter which jurisdiction you're in. "Doing as you request in Firefox": Carrying out operations which might mean moving your data from your local machine to a remote one, such as making web requests with requests bodies formed from data you've input. In total: This means they have the non-exclusive right, without need for payment from you and no matter where you are in the world, for Firefox to do what you've asked it to do with your data. When you posted this comment, that was you telling Firefox to move some data to the internet for you. That is what this legal text and the right they claim provides to you. In the old internet they didn't need to write any legalese for this, their legal team think they might need to now because the landscape has changed. That's it. > Imagine a Mill, Lathe or 3D-Printer would do that. If your mill, lathe or 3d printer could publish your data to the internet I guarantee you with 100% certainty they would include licensing text accomplishing roughly the same thing.