Ladies and gentlemen! It's true. Mozilla has finally done it.
Fortunately I have been dailying @zen_browser for the past 2 months and I recommend you do the same if you don't want to migrate to ChromeTech. Otherwise use @[email protected].
The fox is dead. Long live the fox.
#mozilla #browser #privacy #technology
This is from an article posted in this thread, where Mozilla clarifies the terms.
And I have to admit to being confused, what basic functionallity would break if they don't get my data?
It's the difference between an explicit permission and an implicit permission. Let's put that into the real world for a second. If you want someone to do work in your home to get something done on your behalf you need to tell that person what you want and where you want it. You also need to allow them to come into your home otherwise they can't do their job. All of that happens implicitly in the real world but in the digital world it needs to be written out like that.
In yet other words: it's not about Mozilla wanting your data it's about their service needing it to work at all. You not giving Firefox permission to use your data is akin to asking an electrician if he can do some work but refusing to give any information on what needs doing, or where.
That still doesn't explain why they need access to it.
To work with your analogy, I would be happy granting a specific worker access, but I would not grant the company access.
Meaning, I am fine with the local instance of Firefox access, but why does Mozilla the company need access?
The thing is, the worker is part of the company. If you say that no one from that company is allowed to get into your home that worker can't do it's job either. Mozilla doesn't need access but the worker from them needs it if they are supposed to do their jobs. It's why legally speaking companies can be handles as if they were persons.
all sorts of suggestions