Mozilla Introducing 'Terms of Use' to Firefox : privacy

[–] RonnyZittledong@lemmy.world 360 points 3 months ago (12 children)

I am so tired of feeling like I have an adversarial relationship with everything in my life

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 76 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It's what's known as "vulture capitalism" or "parasitic capitalism", where sociopathic kleptocrats are allowed control and treat all aspects of life as hostile and adversarial — value must be extracted and stolen from others — rather than a mutually beneficial relationship to improve and enrich the experience for everyone.

This is exemplified by the stock market and "line must go up" — the belief that stable, sustainable profits are a failure and growth must be continuous and exponential, in a planet and civilisation of finite resources, analogous to cancer.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 27 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There is even a rumor that, perhaps, no other form of capitalism truly exists.

[–] wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works 16 points 3 months ago

I was about to say that just sounds like capitalism.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] hulfpa@lemmy.ml 36 points 3 months ago

This!!!! All this!

[–] Benjaben@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Hard agree. It does feel like we're entering an age where that may start to shift, though. Well, not so much a shift in the "mainstream", but it feels like we're starting to see more and more parallel products and services that have anti-enshittification built in. And I think that's our best path forward, all of us who care should work towards a parallel ecosystem that cuts these practices out as much as we can.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

We're in the era of Sinisterization

load more comments (8 replies)

[+] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 138 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (16 children)

[deleted]

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 59 points 3 months ago (2 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?

[–] yyprum@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm not an expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but here's what I feel has been more and more the case... It's interesting that the examples you set are all hardware communicating with other hardware. That is a key point because any company selling you those devices can easily defend themselves legally if you decide to sue them for using your data just by saying "how else would we get the device working? It is fundamental to read your data to make the device do what is advertised for" and the case would be dropped faster than my dog comes when I open his food. Now imagine the keyboard company is caught sending the key strokes to their servers... Without a good terms of use contract they would lose immediately against legal action. And even a terms of use contract might be considered null if it is proven to be abusive or something.

When it comes to a software company things get a lot blurrier. It's harder to define the needs for some actions and how things could work vs how they work. So I think it's not uncommon to have this kind of clauses in such cases, specially for getting user data for maintenance and so on. It was less common in the past but as there are more practical cases and experience of where the law draws lines and limits this kind of additions and edits of user contracts are becoming pretty normal.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You make a fair point, and I think I did stumble into a bit of an apples and oranges comparison here.

As far as I know, though, even software with expansive functionality – including other web browsers, and whole operating systems like Linux itself – don't have these types of TOSes either. And if we look at Linux in particular, several flavors of it are maintained by some pretty big companies. Red Hat and Ubuntu are heavyweights in the server industry; they're not as big as Microsoft, perhaps, but I imagine they have their own legal teams.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 44 points 3 months 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)

[–] socialmedia@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] hobovision@lemm.ee 20 points 3 months 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)

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 14 points 3 months ago

People aren't reading the actual EULA, just a headline and maybe, if you're extra lucky, the article where a third party tells them what to think about it.

[–] lambalicious 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Honestly you already start at paragraph 1 with a wrong premise and then go down from there. Allow me to point you to the very beginning, to your first emphasis:

You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate 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.

Here's the trick: they are not operating Firefox, we are. It's a system that runs locally and under our instruction on our devices. When I type something in the URL bar, or when I click Open File, or when I mouse over the screen, Mozilla doesn't have to do anything: everyhting happens locally. No data should be being transmitted or be processed over their systems: Firefox is not a remote desktop / "live service" application.

...Unless...

And there you have it. That's why those terms are here.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] TheMachineStops@discuss.tchncs.de 108 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (8 children)

Firefox "never has and never will" sell your personal data was removed.

https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e

It was moved here, but there is no never will: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq

It seems like every company on the web is buying and selling my data. You’re probably no different.

Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you, and we don’t buy data about you.

[–] whelk@lemm.ee 16 points 3 months ago

It felt so weird to upvote this. Thanks for pointing that out, but also uuuuuuuuuuuuggggggggggghhhhhhhh

[–] Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 months ago

Search for firefox-tou.
The presence of that now magically removes mentions of privacy and not selling user-data in multiple places.

-    <p>
-        Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too.
-    </p>

+    {% if switch('firefox-tou') %}
+      <p>Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too.</p>
+    {% else %}
+      <p>Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too.</p>
+    {% endif %}

Difference here is Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data.

-    <h2 class="c-section-title">The best privacy</h2>
+    {% if switch('firefox-tou') %}
+      <h2 class="c-section-title">Always protected</h2>
+    {% else %}
+      <h2 class="c-section-title">The best privacy</h2>
+    {% endif %}

Pivoting from privacy to security in the tos.

-      <li>
-        <h2>{{ ftl('does-firefox-sell') }}</h2>
-        <p>{{ ftl('nope-never-have', url=url('privacy')) }}</p>
-      </li>
+      {% if not switch('firefox-tou') %}
+        <li>
+          <h2>{{ ftl('does-firefox-sell') }}</h2>
+          <p>{{ ftl('nope-never-have', url=url('privacy')) }}</p>
+        </li>
+      {% endif %}

As you mentioned they will apparently sell your data under tos.

Where does the tos apply and where the mpl now?
They would have removed all those mentions of privacy entirely if the mpl had no use anymore, wouldn't they?

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] BroBot9000@lemmy.world 103 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 3 months 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.

[–] justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io 27 points 3 months 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)

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 3 months ago

It was on the horizon ever since the new leadership took over. Sad but predictable.

[–] RejZoR@lemmy.ml 71 points 3 months 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.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 32 points 3 months 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.

load more comments (13 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 49 points 3 months ago

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

[–] excral@feddit.org 36 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Does having a ToS mean that Firefox is no longer FOSS? Freedom 0 of FOSS is: "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose". Isn't that violated if you can only use the software under the condition of accepting terms of service?

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 months ago

Arguably no. It's not "you may not use this if you don't agree." It's "the software does this and here is your warning."

Still incredibly fucked.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] DougHolland@lemmy.world 35 points 3 months 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.

[–] HereIAm@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months 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.

[–] DarkSpectrum@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"help you .... experience ..... content" = Ads

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 31 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] BroBot9000@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago (4 children)

From what I can tell the general consensus is LibreWolf.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Caspy7@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 3 months ago (8 children)

Mozilla updated their post at the top:

UPDATE: We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses, so we want to clear that up. We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox, for example. It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice.

[–] lambalicious 19 points 3 months ago

We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible.

You have that! It's implied by provision when you distribute your software under eg.: GPL!

[–] HeartyOfGlass@lemm.ee 19 points 3 months ago

We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible

Gee whizz, like what? What "basic" functionality is missing that can only be solved with a ToS saying they're going to track how I use their browser?

Without it, we couldn't use information typed into Firefox

That's what I needed to see. So it's not missing basic functionality, they just want to make it legal to track your browser usage.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Clarifying literally nothing.

"We couldn't use information typed into Firefox." Good. You don't get that information. My software, on my computer, does. Will some insane new law suggest Notepad spies on users by capturing their keystrokes? No? Then this aggressively vague bullshit is justifying a data-collection scheme. Metadata is still data.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] wizblizz@lemmy.world 29 points 3 months ago

Omfg I'm sick of this bullshit

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 3 months ago (5 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 (5 replies)

[–] Tenkard@lemmy.ml 22 points 3 months ago

I've always supported Firefox and ignored all the telemetry changes issues, after all you can just disable them in about:config, but after this I think I'll switch to a fork. I installed zen browser, the only thing I want is syncing and extensions

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 22 points 3 months ago (3 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.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Is it so hard to just be an ethical company?

Well, assuming by company you mean a for-profit entity, then yes.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] MrWafflesNBacon@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Bruh. Is there a Firefox fork on Android? I have Librewolf on desktop but I don't think they have an Android app sadly.

[–] Lcs_150@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 3 months ago

Fennec is one for Android. Seems okay so far.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] scholar@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago

Doesn't apply to forks, but still...

[–] Strepto@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 months ago (4 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.

[–] Reviever@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (4 children)

to what tho?....

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

Privacy

Rules

Related communities: