Mozilla is NOT SELLING your DATA! (But they did mess up…)
Mozilla is NOT SELLING your DATA! (But they did mess up…)
You can find all of these videos as written articles, plus some extra content, at https://thelibre.news/ You can the channel grow by donating to the following platforms: Paypal: https://paypal.me/ni...
Firefox routinely ignores it's users wants & needs. The CEO is paid way too much. Take $5 million away from his annual salary to pay developers to create the best browser there ever was.
Her* salary.
Her, him, their. All I see is a greedy person who contributes nothing to the browser, gender makes no difference.
100% agreed
Mozilla is NOT SELLING your DATA, but they are collecting it and sharing it with select partners in order to "stay comercially viable".
They're not claiming a right to sell data right now, but they have removed the promise to not sell data.
That promise is a canary statement. When the canary dies it's an indication of something, usually that it's time to stop using the product/service.
More specifically, they aren't claiming the right to sell data however they want. However, they do have to follow all legal requests, and they can bill for this provision. If a government compells them to sell they have to oblige.
Right, that's the claim I saw from the Foundation over the weekend (yesterday?) - "selling data" is SUCH a nebulous legal concept that's different in many jurisdictions that it's borderline impossible to keep that language anymore.
...I'm not sure how completely I buy that, but I can see where they're coming from. I hope that the Mozilla Foundation will clarify what data is being harvested and sold to whom, but I've studied enough history to know that transparency fading isn't a good sign.
In an aggregated and anonymized manner
I would replace that "aggregated and anonymized" with an and/or, as that is consistent with the language in Mozilla's privacy policy. The distinction is fairly important because de-anonymizing user data is a practice of its own and exactly what it sounds like.
Now, is the data which Mozilla "shares with" (sells to) its partners anonymized reliably enough that the identity of the person it relates to can never be rediscovered? Granting Mozilla the benefit of the doubt, if it is sufficiently anonymous today, could future developments lead to de-anonymization of that data at a later date? This could include leaks, cyber-attacks directed at Mozilla, AI-assisted statistical analysis of bulk data, etc.
In an aggregated and anonymized manner
Phew, what a relief, that puts my concerns about powerful actors abusing that aggregated data fully to rest!
Just like Google
If folks are still this confused about the new changes, maybe Mozilla is still doing something wrong with their communication.
Nah. Those of us who tried explaning legalese here the last few days have been heavily downvoted.
Maybe sometimes people really just need to chill and accept that their gut feelings aren't facts.
You should not need legal people explaining the change of mission statements or FAQs... Imo Mozilla just really sucks at PR (it not just this time)
If by explaining you mean hand waving and saying it's fine because it's in legal jargon instead of plain English then sure, you did a great job of explaining 👍
https://fedia.io/m/privacy@lemmy.world/t/1853068/-/comment/9571333
(you should also listen to the people with knowledge, which are the legal people in this instance)
Welcome to Lemmy, where not being outraged by every single thing is against the rules!
I’m still confused about why a tool would need a tos when it has freedom zero.
Otherwise great lies from them.
I mean apparently according to California they might be?
I don't think that's the case. This article says that an overly generalised definition of "sale" was proposed in California law, but that language was removed before the law came into effect.
Instead of quibbling over the exact demarcation of selling data, they should stop whatever it is they are doing that could possibly be construed that way. Really, why are they even collecting the data? They have to collect it before they can sell it, and they shouldn't collect it in the first place.
Then there is that TOU gives an insane picture of what they think their role is when you use a browser. I don't feel like finding and pasting the words, but really their role in the process is they supply the browser and you use it. They should acknowledge that instead of pretending otherwise.
Maybe I glanced over it too much, but as far as I know the problem is this exact line which is still in the law:
by the business to another business or a third party for monetary or other valuable consideration
Context:
"... 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 the business to another business or a third party for monetary or other valuable consideration."
What is this "or other valuable consideration"? Could be anything which makes it very very very very broad
As far as I understand it, yes possibly... But if their definition is very weird to me... I now watched 2 30 minute long videos about it and still don't understand what the problem is exactly...
What I did get though is that they majorly screwed up their PR
Basically California thinks that if you receive something of value in return for sharing data that that is considered selling data
I've only just started looking into this, but I think it's all fluff. The claim is that any sharing of data could be considered a sale.
This article says that an overly generalised definition of "sale" was proposed in California law, but that language was removed before the law came into effect. The CCPA webpage also frequently talks about opting out of "sale or sharing", implying those two are different concepts. Thus Mozilla should be able to share data as needed to perform user-driven functions, while still retaining the pledge not to sell user data.
There could also be more nuance in this. Perhaps Mozilla is concerned about liability based on third party actions - if they share with a 3rd party to perform a service, but that 3rd party doesn't follow the privacy terms, then Mozilla has an increased risk of litigation.
I haven't started digging into the actual law itself yet, but the cynic in me wonders if organisations and their lawyers are looking to use this misunderstood news story as an excuse to weaken the privacy rights language. And the effect here is more significant to the user than the mild reduction in risk for Mozilla.
I fucked up and used their password manager for years. Now I'm going through and deleting old accounts I forgot about and saving passwords into keepass and i'll use syncthing between phone, laptop, and pc and probably backup to a private/paid cloud provider. I need to transfer accounts away from gmail as well.
yet
I’ve already chose alternatives, you fucked yourself firefox. Ios = Snowhaze, linux mint os = pale moon, and windows = waterfox.
Does water fox allow extensions?
I am not hearing anything.
Mozilla is not selling your data, yet, but they have removed their pledge to never sell data.
It's an intentional gradual change, and they're playing a sleight of hand trick getting you to talk about whether they actually are selling data right now rather than the canary dying.
If what they have been doing for a while, is now legally "selling your data" in California they just cannot state "we will never sell your data", as the definition of what is meant by "selling data" exactly is not the same everywhere...
They should not have deleted that statement and just clarify it instead of their absolutely messy changes...
Of course you can craft a lm EULA that makes clear their never sell your data. If they want to...
I am fed up. If google does something; google baaaaaaad, if Mozilla does something: poooor Mozilla.
Maybe you want to hold both to the same standards? Yes?
I'm more upset about the addition of terms of service to the browser itself, rather than upon activating optional hosted services.
A browser running on my computer does not result in its creator providing services, and does not need me to grant them a license to any data. The addition of such a license gives them the option to cause the browser to send Mozilla data I did not intend to send to Mozilla.