Critics said the new terms implied Mozilla was asking users for the rights to whatever data they input or upload through Firefox.
Ah, the “confusion” excuse. A classic. Or maybe they meant what they wrote, maybe that.
They did mean what they wrote, but what they wrote didn’t mean what you and the people who decided to get Big Mad about this thought it meant.
Mozilla, please. The wording of things in the terms of use document is not the main problem. The exact legal interpretations given to them does not make much difference. That you suddenly feel the need to impose on your remaining users a “terms of use” agreement at the same time as you stop promising not to sell user data is not conducive to retaining your credibility.
The whole ToS is the problem. It violates the first rule of FOSS: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The fact that they are dragging their feet proves that they intend to keep it to sell something or use that data (hint: that would be perfect to train a LLM or sell specialized ads). And they’ll do it over and over until we are too tired to ask.
Firefox does not need a ToS because it’s a tool. Sync or Pocket maybe, but not Firefox.
No no, you don’t understand, you see - they rewrote them! Just for you!
So. If you could just quit backlashing now, that’d be great. Oh, and click Accept.
The article points out that the legal definition of what a sale is didn’t match how they were using it. They didn’t stop promising to not sell user data.
They literally removed the entire section “Does Firefox sell my data?” which started with “Nope, never have, never will!”
The problem isn’t what the TOU says, it’s the fact that there’s a TOU at all. The browser isn’t a service that needs terms, it’s an application that shouldn’t have any.
Bookmark and password syncing are services, as is pocket. Whether you choose to utilize them is up to you, but they are integrated into the browser as distributed.
And when you opt-in to those services, you should be presented with their terms.
-
There are in fact a ton of services that browsers interface with on behalf of a user. Always have been. For example, Firefox uses the Google Safe Browsing service to protect against phishing. They use location services to fulfill the Geolocation API. They call DNS servers to find the website you want, etc, etc.
-
Applications do have terms, they’re called EULA’s. It’s the same idea. Also nothing new, I’ve been clicking through that shit since the year 2000.
There are in fact a ton of services that browsers interface with on behalf of a user. Always have been. For example, Firefox uses the Google Safe Browsing service to protect against phishing. They use location services to fulfill the Geolocation API. They call DNS servers to find the website you want, etc, etc.
Firefox doesn’t need a TOU to access those. Those aren’t owned or operated by Mozilla. And there hasn’t been anything that has been added to Mozilla which would require such a change over the non-terms the application was provided under for twenty years.
Applications do have terms, they’re called EULA’s. It’s the same idea. Also nothing new, I’ve been clicking through that shit since the year 2000.
Yes, and Firefox had one until 2014. They then replaced it with the MPL2.0, “a free software license, which gives you the right to run the program for any purpose, to study how it works, to give copies to your friends and to modify it to meet your needs better. There is no separate End User License Agreement (EULA).”
So clearly not required.
The article goes into the first point though.
Using those services on your behalf is, potentially (in a legal sense) use of your data. By providing some information to a third party, even if Firefox itself doesn’t itself use it. This may come from the fact that you don’t directly agree to terms with the third parties when you start using the browser, with safe browsing for example. So Firefox is in a sense using/sharing private information. And in the changing legal landscape this usage may fall under modern privacy laws, such as the one mentioned in the article.
I agree the old wording was bad, but I do see the reasoning behind the new one.
If that’s all this is, then it shouldn’t be terribly difficult to provide a list of all the third parties they transmit data to and why; they could divide it out by “on by default” and “off by default,” and include the data that’s sent to them and how it’s anonymized or aggregated. That would be the easiest possible way to quell the concerns of users, but they’re still being cagey about all of that.
Counterpoint: curl
It can hit all the endpoints and services you mention.
It has a license but it is very different: https://github.com/curl/curl/blob/master/LICENSES/curl.txt
-
Those terms are unenforceably vague. It’s not even close. Mozilla needs to pay an actual lawyer to write a policy for them.
Maybe they could spend that $6 million they give the CEO on a lawyer
So now users have to be on the lookout for more cringey Mozilla activity. That’s not what trust is.
Too late, so sad. I already uninstalled Firedung. Falkon is now my default browser. “Oh, honey, I didn’t fuck that wo(man)! And besides, s(he) wasn’t interested in me. Please take me back.”
Isn’t Falkon still Chromium based?
Meh, already using ironwolf on my phone and librewolf on computers. Companies can’t be trusted anymore.
