5mo ago

New Firefox Terms "does NOT give us ownership of your data"

connect.mozilla.org

Re: Information about the New Terms of Use and Updated Privacy Notice for Firefox

Thanks everyone for your active participation here. We knew this would have a lot of interest and so we’ve waited to dive into the conversation because we see some themes emerging that I’ll respond to broadly here. The main concerns I’m noting are around the license agreements we declare, our use of data for AI, and our Acceptable Use Policy. Below are a few clarifications to each of these areas.

51 comments

We. Don't. Want. AI.
Great, what other good Gecko Engine Browsers are there?
- zen, i guess
  
  Zen is not another browser, it is just reskinned firefox with some tweaks.
  
  Too recent to trust, I feel like. Have you been using it? What do you make of it?
- Orion
  
  Last I checked it was webkit based, did they change it?
"It does NOT give us ownership of your data"
Then why did it say that it does?
"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 we insist on having terms at all, then GOOD and user-respecting terms are ones which list clearly, precisely and exhaustively exactly what data will be used for what purpose under what circumstance.
BAD and corporate-favouring terms are ones which make broad, sweeping statements which can be interpreted any way the company likes in their favour - and where changes to how and what data is shared and transmitted can be made any time without updating the terms, because the terms are so broad they cover just about anything.
Pretty clear which one of those things the new terms are.
- Uhh, because without letting Firefox use the information you type, you would have a very shitty word processor instead of a web browser?
  Imaging typing "www.google.com" and Firefox just sits there because without your permission to use the data you gave it, Firefox would ethically not be able send that text to a DNS server.
  That's what that means.
  
  When you interact with your web browser as an application, the information you put into it - including any DNS queries or submitted data - is routed between your ISP, your DNS provider, and the provider of the website. And for non-mozilla websites then none of those are Mozilla.
  "Firefox" as a browser sees that stuff, but "Mozilla" as an organisation, a busineas entity, does not need to see that.
  Exactly the same that when you buy a bicycle you can ride it anywhere you like without the company who made the bike knowing where you are - sure they made the bike, but after that point, the relationship is over.
  This is why historically there has not been any need to accept terms for a browser, because a browser is just a vehicle - what you use the browser for has actually no dependency with the company who made it.
  A policy only starts to become necessary when the browser positions itself as an entity that you transact with directly; like creating an account to sync data with Mozilla services and store things in pocket, or to interact with AI services which Mozilla provides.
  Effectively, mozilla have now started adding extra features to the bicycle which are useful but also need to communicate with Bike HQ to work. And they are being a little less than specific about what data that is or what they will do with it.
  That's what data usage policies are about - what data does Mozilla as an organisation collect, what do they use it for, and what third parties do they interact with to provide those services. And that's what I'd hope to see, rather than a broad statement that in theory allows anything.
  
  Seems weird. Should the linux kernel be getting my permission to send what I type from the keyboard to Firefox? What about when the kernel sends what firefox does through my wifi card? It gets silly real quick.
  
  You need to understand that what you wrote is utter bullshit and not how any of this works, or has ever worked.
  Mozilla is not the software running on your computer and you having some sort of agreement with them is not even slightly required for the software running locally to connect to the third-party server that you, the user, directed it to connect to.
  Adding Mozilla ToS to Firefox is like putting "vegan" labels on tomatoes: it's not just pointless, but also suspicious.
  
  Hmmm. How about no other program has ever required this? A program is not the company. I do not need to give away my right to my data to use a telephone or send a postcard.
  
  @billiam0202 in this age of data pillaging to fuel AI models and target ads, people rightfully assume the worst. If that’s Firefox’s intention then better wording is required.
- This is exactly why I don't believe a single word they say about this new TOS.
  Their MPL2 was perfectly fine. Moving their executable to a proprietary license with less freedoms was not going to go well.
It’s clear now that they don’t care, and they will use whatever we type to train their AI.
That’s the end of Firefox for me, it’s disgusting that they don’t care about privacy anymore.
- Thank god for forks
  
  What are some of the forks?
I feel for Ashley here. She likely had no say in the matter and is being tasked to defend this change.
There is only one way to fix this short term which is to roll back the TOS.
Long term would be to guarantee to keep the MPL as the governing license for both the source code and executable.
Acceptable solution would be severely limit the license users would have to give to Mozilla, both time bound and use bound.
you hereby grant us a ~~nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide~~ limited, royalty-free license, used for the duration explicitly necessary to allow Firefox ~~to use that information to help you~~ navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate ~~with your use of Firefox~~, not to exceed execution duration of the browser, or one day, whichever is shorter.
But again, absolutely no license should be necessary. The browser is not a legal entity and I should not need to give Mozilla a license for my data.
- The ToS hasn't gone into effect yet, so it would be postponing rather than rolling back. One thing that hasn't been answered yet, though, is why this change is needed now - possibly, there's a legal reason why postponing isn't an option?
- I feel for all the dollars that will get wet with her tears as she wipes her eyes with them.
K. In that case, explicitly guarantee it in your terms and conditions.
February 19, 2025.
As I have said many times over the last few years, Mozilla is entering a new chapter—one where we need to both defend what is good about the web and steer the technology and business models of the AI era in a better direction.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-leadership-growth-planning-updates/
Apparently there is new era.
- Do you think Librewolf is a valid alternative? I'd like to keep using it but obviously I wouldn't want to if it doesn't live up to it's name.
- Waterfox migrator here too. I'm considering a monthly $ membership to Waterfox because it's getting harder to find a browser that doesn't want to cloud capitalise my usage.
Fucking shitpiles at mozilla
How are y'all feeling about icecat?
So, how painless is the transition from heavily customized and extended Firefox Developer Edition to Waterfox? Do I lose CSS support for multi-row tabs or compatibility with any extensions attained from the Mozilla store?
I already don't maintain a Mozilla account or use any form of syncing, so "losing" that won't matter.
EDIT: it's completely fucking painless. I installed Waterfox, then copied all the stuff in my Firefox profile folder into the Waterfox one. That's it.
- Ah, does it also have Pocket and Mozilla VPN and all the stuff I have to go into about:config to remove from Firefox too?

51 comments