this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2025
156 points (93.8% liked)

No Stupid Questions

37608 readers
1217 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I don't understand how they are supposed to "sell your data" if you just never use a Mozilla account and uncheck all the telemetry. Its not like they can secretly steal your data, since its Open Source.

It seems to me like just more FUD that Google is spreading to undermine our trust in free software.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

The rationalization they have given is that legally, they may have been seeking data all along, as some jurisdictions define it extremely loosely.

For example, if you use their translation feature, they are sending the page your looking at (data) to a third party, which provides a benefit to Mozilla. Thats technically a sale in some laws, but most would agree that is acceptable given the user asked for it to happen.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because, in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “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 [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.” 

I'm overall concerned with Mozilla, but not sure this is malicious yet. But definitely needs to be closely scrutinized.

[–] swordgeek 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Here's the crux of the problem.

Mozilla went from "explicitly not malicious" to "probably not malicious yet."

What's next?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

Yup. And it doesn't help that they have been throwing away good will for a while now, with their crypto/AI/etc bandwagon jumping. They are still the least worst option, as I dont trust the forks either, but its getting hard to trust them.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The privacy centric way for Mozilla to have address this would have been to:

  • acknowledge laws in certain countries have changed
  • Due to those new laws, the definition of "sell" has changed and Firefox may no longer be in compliance with their desire to keep your data private
  • Commit their desire to take the necessary steps to keep new versions of Firefox in line with their original vision
  • update the "we will not sell" definition to within the jurisdiction of the United States, or indicate that the definition of sell may be different in different jurisdictions
  • make the necessary extensions to jurisdictions where they were "selling" user data, self reporting where necessary
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Yup, its been terribly handled. Dunno if it was driven by a panicy lawyer, but those steps would have been much better. At a minimum, that blog post should have come first.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The current intention may not be malicious, but it leaves the way open for changes that are to slip in. If they were worried about services like translation being concidered 'sales', which is a reasonable concern, they should have split them out of the core browser into an extension and put the 'might sell your data' licence on that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, its definitely wide open for abuse now. But the California law also seems way too vague as well. What about DNS lookup? That takes a users input and transfers it to someone else, is that a "sale"? Can hardly start separating that out of the browser? Http requests? Its all users initiated, but is it a "sale" in California? Not a lawyer, haven't a clue.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

DNS is fine as the exchange has to be for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration” to be considered a sale. The issue seems to be that Mozilla were profiting off of things like adverts placed on the new tab page, and possibly from the translation service too.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not a lawyer, but "other valuable consideration" seems very broad. For DNS, getting the returned IP address is valuable. Ditto for http, getting the returned webpage is valuable?

I only suggested the translation thing because it (imo) fell under a "transfer of data for value provided", which makes it a sale?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Getting an IP address or the HTTP payload is valuable to the user, not to Mozilla, so there's no sale there. Likewise with translation data, but if the translation company then send Mozilla a kickback for sending users their way, it would become a sale. Adverts on the 'new page' tab would definately be a sale.

I think they've removed the clauses about not selling your data from the ToS for the reasons they've stated, but it leaves a wide open hole in their promises and a huge temptation to add more advertising/data-mining in the future. I would have prefered them to instead leave the browser ToS as it was and move the questionable aspects into optional extensions that were licenced separately.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago

The angle I was thinking along was that if Mozilla was prevented from making those data transfers, then their browser becomes worthless. So in reverse, by making the transfers, their browser gains value. The obvious problem with that interpretation is that its basically impossible not to make a sale, as every transfer provides value - which very much defeats the purpose of the definition. (Not a lawyer, just an internet idiot, and I very much hope your definition is correct)

Spinning them out would have been preferable to me as well, and tbh, at this stage, I think I would prefer if firefox was spun out of Mozilla entirely. It really deserves to be managed by something like the Linux foundation or some other not-for-profit steward.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Something to note, however, is that the new terms apply to the browser as a whole. If it was due to some of the opt-in services the browser includes (sync, account, translation, etc.), they could have specified the terms apply to those services instead.

Agree this isn't necessarily malicious yet, but it definitely is not beneficial to users.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I love how California basically defines a sale as "exchanging things for money" and Firefox is like, "its such a craaazy world we can't even agree on the definition of exchanging things for money out here! Some call it a 'sale' apparently, so if we're gonna exchange your data for money I guess we have to call it a 'sale'... Stupid California, changing things to mean what they've always meant"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Its even more broad than that, because its any exchange of data for valuable consideration. No money has to change hands, but if it benefits FF, its a sale. And the benefit could simply be "if we do this we will function correctly as a browser".

[–] swordgeek 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The rationalization they have given...

Anything you say after this point is irrelevant. (Nothing personal, though.)

As soon as a company has to rationalise their legal back-pedalling, it is explicit evidence that they are intending to do wrong.

This will not end well.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If the legal definition of a term has changed such that their current activities now fall under it, changing the terms of use legal document does make sense.

They are pretty clear that under California law, they are "selling" data. They have two options, keep the ToU document the same, and try meet the new laws requirements (which as I've said in other comments, seems impossible for a browser - not a lawyer though), or update their ToU without changing their current behaviors.

They have gone with the latter, but it does also allow them to be far more "evil". Its definitely the first step down a bad road, time will tell if they go further.

If you want to play it safe, block their domains via pihole: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Websites/Domain_List/Mozilla_Owned

[–] swordgeek 1 points 1 hour ago

time will tell if they go further.

Having seen this FAR too often, I have a different view:

Capitalism and greed will determine when they go further.

There is no "if" about it. Mitchell Baker is in it to get rich by destroying the platform, and is sharing enough of the corpse's leavings with others to make sure they protect her.