this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
395 points (97.1% liked)
Privacy
1023 readers
1546 users here now
Protect your privacy in the digital world
Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.
Rules
PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!
- Be nice, civil and no bigotry/prejudice.
- No tankies/alt-right fascists. The former can be tolerated but the latter are banned.
- Stay on topic.
- Don't promote proprietary software.
- No crypto, blockchain, etc.
- No Xitter links. (only allowed when can't fact check any other way, use xcancel)
- If in doubt, read rule 1
Related communities:
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Before everyone freaks out over "terms of use = Firefox bad now" (I'm citing the actual Terms of Use and Privacy Notice)
I'll add emphasis as needed.
This doesn't mean you're giving them a license to do whatever they want with your data, it means you're giving them the ability to use that data explicitly as you choose to navigate the web. (e.g. you use Firefox to make a post, they have to process those keystrokes through Firefox to send it to the server, and thus could require permission to do that in the form of having a license)
They explicitly have the license only to use the information in line "with your use of Firefox," and to "navigate, experience, and interact with online content." not to do whatever they want. They should have worded this better, but this isn't one of those "we own everything you ever put in your browser" kind of clauses.
This is standard on basically every site, and kind of obvious. You shouldn't be able to say "you should do this thing," have them do it, and then say "actually I own the license to this and you have to pay me"
Nothing requires you to stay in this contract after you stop using the services, and this is just reaffirming the fact that, yes, they can stop offering Firefox in the future if they simply can't sustain it, without somehow breaking contract. More legalese just to protect them from frivolous lawsuits.
This basically just means "don't do crimes using our browser." Again, standard clause that basically everything has to make sure that nobody can claim in court that Firefox/Mozilla is liable for something a user did with their software.
Standard liability clause, basically everything also has this.
And that's it. That's the terms of use. Nothing here is out of the ordinary, uncalled for, or unreasonable for them to have.
Now let's move on to the new Privacy Notice.
This just states that if you use the chatbots, you're subject to their policies, and also Mozilla will collect very light amounts of data to understand how often and to what degree the feature is used. The first part is functionally no different from saying "If you go to OpenAI's website and use ChatGPT, you'll be bound by their ToS." Yeah, of course you will, that's obvious.
Another optional feature that, if you choose to turn on and use yourself, will obviously have to collect data that is required for such a thing to work. It can't check reviews if it can't see the reviews on the website. As for the product recommendations and sponsored content, that's not desirable, but they do very clearly mention that you can just turn it off in settings.
If you search on their site for extensions, they have to process your search, and if you need to install addons, they'll have to connect to Mozilla's servers and collect the relevant data to make sure the extensions are available where you are. Shocking. /s
This has been around for a while already. If you choose to use beta features, then yeah, they'll collect some diagnostics. That's why it's in beta: to get data on if it's working properly.
Checking for updates and providing malicious site blocking requires connecting to servers to download the updates and having a list to block bad sites. Again, very shocking. /s
And that's basically it for that.
I seriously don't understand the reactionary attitude so many people have towards things like this. Read the policies yourself, and you'll see that their explicit purpose is either:
None of this is abnormal.
Yes, it absolutely is. I do not say this lightly. While I'm not an attorney, I review FOSS licenses regularly for my personal projects and for work. Consider:
They all take user actions and user content. None of them have anything like this.
This is very worrying because each of these points can be refuted with the same quotes. I'll add my own emphasis:
If Mozilla wants to limit their use of my input, why the do I need to give them a full, non-exclusive license? This is the very language that LinkedIn, et al have used to train their LLMs and said that we all gave them permission to do so. While the letter of the law that may be true, we know that if we had the option to opt out, we would have.
I'm sorry but the license does not say that is the only way they will use this data. It's not explicit, like you claim. It's implicit. The explicit part is "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license". They say that it will be used to "help you navigate the internet" but what the does that mean?!
"Navigating the internet" does not require me to grant a license. Much of this would fall under fair use and to this day, it's fallen under fair use. And even if it did require a license, why have it be nonexclusive? Language that specifies the length of the license shall be limited to the amount of time necessary to make the connection to a website, provide the necessary services of a website, etc. would all that would be needed.
And this is even BEFORE we get into the whole reasoning of even needing a license. The only reason you need a license from anyone is if you plan on storing, transmitting, transferring, or otherwise utilizing a right protected under copyright law. The only reason why Mozilla could possibly need a license is if they plan on storing or processing your data outside of your device. Best case scenario: they are using your data to "speed up" connections by processing it through their servers. Worst case (and more likely scenario): they want the data to train AI.
While you are factually correct, Firefox is explicitly stating here that they have the right to terminate an individual's use of their browser, a freedom that was protected under the MPL.
This part really made my brain itch so I had to dig deeper. This is worse than I initially thought: Mozilla is replacing the MPL as the governing license for their executable and replacing with their TOS.
I'm not sure how I can read their TOS as anything but "terms of use = Firefox bad now". You are losing your freedom under the MPL to use Firefox however you see fit. What concern does Mozilla have if I decide to use their browser for crimes? They aren't facilitating it and under the MPL, they were protected from it. Since the TOS is now replacing the MPL, introducing an "Acceptable Use Policy" no longer makes this FOSS. It makes it Source Available.
As an avid Firefox user for decades and a former supporter of the Mozilla Foundation, this is the last straw for me. I will not agree to use a browser where my data is going to be used by them without any exclusions.
I hope you are right and I'm wrong. But given the current landscape, Mozilla likely feels the pressure to "do something with AI" and we're their products. You can continue to use it, but I'm spending the weekend figuring out alternatives.
Those are licenses for you to use the software. They aren't licenses for the software maintainer to use your information.
There's an important fact you may not know: Politicians often have no understanding of things they are regulating. Why is this important? A future privacy law could easily be written such that a browser doing browser things (like submitting a comment on an unrelated website) could be construed as the maintainer using user data. They are getting ahead of that possibility by requiring that you give them permission to do the things you want them to do.
I agree that politicians are idiots but we're not talking about politicians.
And even if we were, the case law around privacy pales in comparison to copyright law.
There is no reason why a browser that sits on devices under my control requires me to give an unrestricted license to the software maintainer.
If Mozilla wishes to bundle their AI slop and issue a separate license for that where I can disagree to my use of it, that would be one thing. But the TOS, as currently written, allows for any use of my data.
It doesn't allow for any use of your data. It allows for use of your data to do the things you ask it to do. That permission is implied by you asking it to do something, but it isn't explicitly stated.
The AI clause is conditional. It only applies if you use the AI features.