this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
384 points (97.1% liked)

Privacy

980 readers
784 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!

  1. Be nice, civil and no bigotry/prejudice.
  2. No tankies/alt-right fascists. The former can be tolerated but the latter are banned.
  3. Stay on topic.
  4. Don't promote proprietary software.
  5. No crypto, blockchain, etc.
  6. No Xitter links. (only allowed when can't fact check any other way, use xcancel)
  7. If in doubt, read rule 1

Related communities:

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
 

From the new terms:

When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago (8 children)

This is unfortunate. I've been advocating for Firefox and managed to switch many of my friends. This is where I draw the line.

Time to switch to something else.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 132 points 1 day ago (17 children)

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.

You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet. When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

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.

If you give Mozilla any ideas, suggestions, or feedback about the Services, you give Mozilla permission to use them for free and without any additional obligations.

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"

These Terms apply until either you or Mozilla decide to end them. You can choose to end them at any time for any reason by stopping your use of Firefox. Mozilla can suspend or end anyone’s access to Firefox at any time for any reason, including if Mozilla decides not to offer Firefox anymore. If we decide to suspend or end your access, we will try to notify you at the email address associated with your account or the next time you attempt to access your account.

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.

Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, and you agree that you will not use Firefox to infringe anyone’s rights or violate any applicable laws or regulations.

You agree to indemnify and hold Mozilla and its affiliates harmless for any liability or claim from your use of Firefox, to the extent permitted by applicable law.

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.

To the extent permitted by applicable law, you agree that Mozilla will not be liable in any way for any inability to use Firefox or for any limitations of Firefox. Mozilla specifically disclaims the following: Indirect, special, incidental, consequential, or exemplary damages, direct or indirect damages for loss of goodwill, business interruption, lost profits, loss of data, or computer malfunction. Any liability for Mozilla under this agreement is limited to $500.

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.

You have the option to use a third-party AI chatbot of your choice to help you with things like summarizing what you’re reading, writing and brainstorming ideas, subject to that provider’s terms of use and privacy notice.

If you choose to enable a chatbot in the sidebar and/or through a shortcut, Mozilla does not have access to your conversations or the underlying content you input into the selected chatbot. We do collect technical and interaction data on how this feature is used to help improve Firefox, such as how often each third-party chatbot provider is chosen, how often suggested prompts are used, and the length of selected text.

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.

Review Checker is a Firefox feature that helps you determine whether reviews are reliable when you shop online with sites like Amazon.com, BestBuy.com and Walmart.com. If you opt in to using Review Checker, Mozilla will process information about the website and the product identifier of the products you view using our privacy preserving technology called OHTTP. OHTTP combines encryption and a third party intermediary server, helping prevent Mozilla from linking you or your device to the products you have viewed. We also collect technical and interaction data on how this feature is used to help improve Firefox.

By opting in to using Review Checker you also agree to be shown product recommendations and sponsored content. If you do not want to receive product recommendations and sponsored content, you can opt out of this feature under Review Checker settings at any time.

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.

You can install add-ons from addons.mozilla.org (“AMO”) or from the Firefox Add-ons Manager, which is accessible from the Firefox menu button in the toolbar. We process your search queries in the Add-ons Manager to be able to provide you with suggested add-ons. If you choose to install any add-ons, Firefox will process technical, location and settings data, and periodically connect with Mozilla’s servers to install and apply the correct updates to your add-ons. We also collect technical and interaction data on usage of add-ons, to help improve Firefox.

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

Mozilla runs studies within Firefox and makes certain experimental features available through Firefox Labs to test different features and ideas before they’re made available to all Firefox users or become part of the core Firefox offering — this allows us to make more informed decisions about what our users want and need. This research uses technical, system performance, location, settings and interaction data.

We also need to process data to keep Firefox operational, improve features and performance, and identify, troubleshoot and diagnose issues. For this we use technical, location and settings data, as well as interaction and system performance data (such as number of tabs open, memory usage or the outcome of automated processes like updates). In the rare situations where the information needed also includes limited browsing data (e.g., Top Level Domain annotations for page-load performance monitoring), it will be transmitted using OHTTP; this helps prevent Mozilla from linking you or your device to the data collected for this purpose.

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.

Because maintaining the latest version of Firefox helps keep you safe against vulnerabilities, desktop versions of Firefox regularly connect to Mozilla’s servers (or another service that you used to install Firefox) to check for software updates; updates for Android and iOS versions of Firefox are managed by Google’s Play Store and Apple’s App Store, respectively.

We also process technical data and settings data to protect against malicious add-ons. In addition to these standard processes, we use Google’s Safe Browsing Service to protect you from malicious downloads and phishing attacks, and validate web page and technical data with Certificate Authorities. As part of our work to improve privacy and security for all internet users, we collect technical data via OHTTP, to better understand, prevent and defend against fingerprinting.

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:

  1. Legally clarifying things to protect Mozilla from legal liability they shouldn't have, and frivolous lawsuits.
  2. Making sure it's clear that to do certain things, they have to, y'know, process the data for that thing.
  3. Explaining where different features might rely on parties outside Mozilla.

None of this is abnormal.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 day ago (5 children)

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:

  • Linux Mint uses GPL2
  • LibreOffice uses MPL 2
  • Countless, countless FOSS software all use free, open-source licenses

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:

You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet. When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

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.

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.

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.

These Terms apply until either you or Mozilla decide to end them. You can choose to end them at any time for any reason by stopping your use of Firefox. Mozilla can suspend or end anyone’s access to Firefox at any time for any reason, including if Mozilla decides not to offer Firefox anymore. If we decide to suspend or end your access, we will try to notify you at the email address associated with your account or the next time you attempt to access your account.

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.

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.

Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, and you agree that you will not use Firefox to infringe anyone’s rights or violate any applicable laws or regulations.

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.

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Personally, I've never seen a Terms of Service about granting any software a license to do things on my own device before.

  • I have a monitor, I don't think I signed a Terms of Service that says I gave it a worldwide license to function by piping video from an HDMI cable onto its panel.
  • I don't think I signed a Terms of Service for my keyboard to send royalty-free keystroke signals to a USB port.
  • I don't think I signed a non-exclusive license for my mouse to transfer motion detection into USB signal output either.

Is this normal? Have I just not been looking in the right places?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 day ago (3 children)

For me the problem is the use of the phrase "to help you..." because I think that means something different, something more, than what you're saying it means. That's not a phrasing that evokes, to me, the deterministic nature of the way a web browser operates (or used to operate). Traditionally, I give a web browser a command and it executes it, such as "go to this web address" or "print this page" or "save this as a bookmark". Helping me, on the other hand, would involve some processing of data to attempt to understand my desires. I don't want Mozilla or Firefox to be doing that at all.

Maybe it's just "readable" language that is read much more narrowly legally to mean just what you're saying. But maybe it opens the door for Mozilla to use it to help me experience online content by learning my habits and demographics in order to lead me to places I indicated I would be interested in by my use of the browser.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If its all normal shit that is totally needed to operate then why didn't they need an agreement before now?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 103 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Fuck your Ai and your license agreement. Enshittification stops at no company.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Maybe going from community effort to company driven isn't so great after all. people say that Open source projects need to do that to stay alive or be worth while. Though all that has been happening with companies lately points to a different conclusion.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It seems that every time a group says a project needs to be company driven, they always end up at the top of that company reaping in the profits.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I read the article but still don't understand what this means:

You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet.

When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

I've seen corporate mission statements that were clearer.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I read it as "you type a URL in the address bar, we'll take you there. You want to search for something using the search bar? We got you, we'll forward your search to the search engine of your choice. All free of charge."

It's just worded in such generic legal wording it makes you gag. But them pointing it out so explicitly just makes me more suspicious lol. I think it's fine for now, just another wall of text to keep an eye on for any future modifications.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 71 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Come on Mozilla, what the fuck are you guys doing? You don't have the luxury of monopoly and you're going to alienate those few diehard fans who stick with Firefox because alternatives are shit and they all run Chromium even if they aren't.

Ladybird needs to materialize fast before it's too late.

I'd go Waterfox, but I really like the on-machine translation in Firefox that Waterfox doesn't have it.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 day ago (13 children)

LibreWolf has the on-machine translation and when you disable some of the hardcore privacy defaults it is a quite good Firefox replacement.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

That's my biggest problem with LibreWolf: the defaults are waay too strict and disable/break so many things

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 day ago

So much for being a "private browser." It literally says that on the app store in the title.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fantastic, guess I'll be looking for an alternative to Firefox.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 day ago (4 children)

From what I can tell the general consensus is LibreWolf.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 day ago

Omfg I'm sick of this bullshit

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I await to see technical enforcement of it. Anyone can write rules on a piece of paper, but without collecting information physically, or having someone enforce it, it's useless words. And so far it seems a lot of people and companies make rules and claims without technological enforcement.

I imagine though at worst you can simply block all of mozilla's domains through /etc/hosts and their IPs or IP range with a firewall rule. Still sucks but you do not need to comply with it, no matter what anyone says. It's the technical aspects that are the most thorny, not the words on a page.


By reading this comment you hearby agree to send Draconic NEO no less than $400 in the currency of AnimalCrossing bells, applies for each time you read it, and re-reads of words also count. You will also be required to stand on your head for 30 minutes for every instance of reading this comment or re-reading a word. Compliance with these terms is mandatory.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Showroom7561 22 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Sigh.

Is it so hard to just be an ethical company? Must every product and service become enshittified?

Couldn't they have just made these "features" an add-on that the user can choose to install (and agree to a separate ToS to use), rather than have it baked into the browser code?

There was a time when you could use the same piece of software or service for decades without worry. Now, I feel like I'm replacing software every few months because of enshittification.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Is it so hard to just be an ethical company?

Companies, by definition, can not be ethical.

What we need is for Mozilla Fd to become a employee coöp.

[–] Showroom7561 2 points 16 hours ago

Companies, by definition, can not be ethical.

Why not?

It's not necessary to treat employees like garbage. To treat private data like a form of currency. To not give a damn about the environment or the future of humanity.

These are choices that the head of these companies decided would be either easier and/or more profitable, and society should be punishing those behaviours.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›