3 ms·

Do you have anything to cite? In 2008, Matt Cuts posted Google does not want rights to things you do using Chrome, which suggests they are not trying to claim

Do you have anything to cite? In 2008, Matt Cuts posted Google does not want rights to things you do using Chrome, which suggests they are not trying to claim or vet what you use Chrome for. Even if there are privacy violations, that seems much less scary than what Firefox has suddenly decided to do. They're seemingly not only watching, but claiming rights! And or will kick you out suddenly if they decide your activity on the web doesn't meet their standards. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43217309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43217309 https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/ https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreeme...

GeekyBear 2y ago
> They're seemingly not only watching, but claiming rights! Did you miss their clarification in the grandparent post? > 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. > And or will kick you out suddenly if they decide your activity on the web doesn't meet their standards. Google literally tried to have parents locked up for using an Android device to seek medical assistance for their child during lockdown. Google was spying on the photos they took to send to their doctor, and Google's AI, based on a single false positive, decided they were guilty of kiddie porn. Even after the police cleared them, Google refused to restore access to their account. > Mark appealed his case to Google again, providing the police report, but to no avail. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/google-surveillance-toddler-photo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/google-surveil...