You can find all of these videos as written articles, plus some extra content, at https://thelibre.news/ You can the channel grow by donating to the following platforms: Paypal: https://paypal.me/ni…
You can find all of these videos as written articles, plus some extra content, at https://thelibre.news/ You can the channel grow by donating to the following platforms: Paypal: https://paypal.me/ni…
I mean apparently according to California they might be?
I don’t think that’s the case. This article says that an overly generalised definition of “sale” was proposed in California law, but that language was removed before the law came into effect.
Instead of quibbling over the exact demarcation of selling data, they should stop whatever it is they are doing that could possibly be construed that way. Really, why are they even collecting the data? They have to collect it before they can sell it, and they shouldn’t collect it in the first place.
Then there is that TOU gives an insane picture of what they think their role is when you use a browser. I don’t feel like finding and pasting the words, but really their role in the process is they supply the browser and you use it. They should acknowledge that instead of pretending otherwise.
I think the fault lies in their online stuff. Things like their VPN, Pocket, FF Sync, etc… Also they collect the aggregated and anonymized ad click thing in the new tab page
I think you’re both right here. Mozilla has been hunting for money (to keep the lights on), and in doing so diversified into many things. However, when it has come to light that some of these things are grey or even black towards their morals, the right thing to do is to stop doing it. Instead of keeping their actions in line with their morals, they’re trying to change their morals to maintain their income.
Yeah I can see your point. Especially with Pocket and the adds on the new tab page…
Maybe I glanced over it too much, but as far as I know the problem is this exact line which is still in the law:
Context:
What is this “or other valuable consideration”? Could be anything which makes it very very very very broad
Firstly, “consideration” in this context means payment. It’s standard contract law terminology. What that statement means is that Mozilla can’t give data to a 3rd party in exchange for a payment (money or otherwise) from the 3rd party.
Mozilla should still be able to “share” data with no value exchange, or even pay a 3rd party to process the data in some way. In the latter case, Mozilla would be giving the data freely, on top of a transaction where Mozilla provides consideration in exchange for the 3rd party’s service.
The only way, as I see it, that “valuable considerstion” towards Mozilla would occur is if the 3rd party were to give a discount on their service in exchange for the right to exploit the data. Or if Mozilla otherwise straight up sold the data.
Consideration does not have to just mean monetary payment
I don’t think I said that? Consideration is any kind of payment, money or otherwise. The terminology of the law also says this, “monetary or other value consideration”. A discount is not really giving money to someone, but it may be valuable consideration (if it is part of a broader deal - a shop shelf discount usually isn’t).
It’s the first sentence on your post
Your statement implies there are other forms of payment than monetary.
My statement did not state monetary payments only, just payment generally. I clarified 2 sentences later with “in exchange for a payment (money or otherwise)”. The point I’m making is that “consideration” is a payment in return for something else, and that payment can either be money or any other valuable item or service.
As I have no legal clue this is my source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bTquKjzos&t=151s
Ahh good ol Rossmann lol. I love him but I hate watching his videos, he goes far too ranty and repeats himself, it becomes hard to extract the real points.
Case in point, the video at your timestamp starts with an After-Before-Whatever rant before getting into any of the meat XD
I think everyone is really missing the points here. It isn’t just bad PR, it’s so bad that it can only be intentional. They didn’t just claim rights and put them back, they removed their pledges to not sell data. The conversation isn’t focused on the net result, the loss of the pledge, it’s diluted elsewhere.
Maybe they’re selling data to governments under law? I’m sure they already have terminology that permits them to do things legally required of them (so they don’t need you to give them further rights), and the general process for the tech industry is to protest against such government interference up until the point a contract is negotiated where the government pays for access. In fact, I think this is generally what’s happened with other businesses when their canary statements have gone away, as was revealed in the Snowden leaks.
I think it holds entertainment value, but if you want to watch the video for informational purposes, yeah I agree :D
I stated my opinion about the statement here:
So like expand on it instead of deleting it…
Maybe it is kinda the same as when Google decided to get rid of the “don’t be evil” statement…
That was exactly what I was thinking of. Although I think there were even better examples with proper canary statements going away in line with the business’ alleged joining of the PRISM program.
As far as I understand it, yes possibly… But if their definition is very weird to me… I now watched 2 30 minute long videos about it and still don’t understand what the problem is exactly…
What I did get though is that they majorly screwed up their PR
Basically California thinks that if you receive something of value in return for sharing data that that is considered selling data
Yes exactly. And that is entirely right and proper.
Nothing of what Mozilla should be doing meets that definition. Even if they share data with 3rd parties to process it, and even if they pay the 3rd party for that service, they’re not supposed to get something in return for providing the data. But also, providing data in such a manner does not mean they are selling it.
If they are getting something in return for providing the data, be it payment, other services or even simply a discount, then they’re doing something wrong.
Mozilla thinks they are getting something in return( I believe it’s services). I only watched the rossmann video but the Mozilla document he showed lays it out
Cool, I’ll give the video a full watch then. I normally don’t like Rossmann videos because he takes 30 min to say what he could have covered in 5-10.
But yeah, they shouldn’t be doing that. That’s selling of data. If they want to sell my data, that I manufactured by my literal blood, sweat, and tears of being alive, they should pay me for it first.
Could it be e.g. the sponsored tiles on the new tab? If you click those, the sponsor inevitably gets your IP address and thus your approximate location, and Mozilla gets paid.
As far as I know they do not get that. Mozilla aggregates and anonymizes the people that clicked on the sponsored link. Of course Amazon knows when you request their site, but they do not know that you clicked it from the sponsored link (as far as I know)
Yeah I meant the latter - you visit the Amazon website, and then your IP address is shared with them. I have no idea how broad these legal clauses are, and it could be that there’s a need to (legally) guard against even that.
Well that is just the basis of browsing the web… If you don’t want to share your IP you have to proxy your traffic though some other server like a VPN for example…
Yes, but we’re talking legalese here, not common sense, so I don’t want to make any assumptions 😅
I’ve only just started looking into this, but I think it’s all fluff. The claim is that any sharing of data could be considered a sale.
This article says that an overly generalised definition of “sale” was proposed in California law, but that language was removed before the law came into effect. The CCPA webpage also frequently talks about opting out of “sale or sharing”, implying those two are different concepts. Thus Mozilla should be able to share data as needed to perform user-driven functions, while still retaining the pledge not to sell user data.
There could also be more nuance in this. Perhaps Mozilla is concerned about liability based on third party actions - if they share with a 3rd party to perform a service, but that 3rd party doesn’t follow the privacy terms, then Mozilla has an increased risk of litigation.
I haven’t started digging into the actual law itself yet, but the cynic in me wonders if organisations and their lawyers are looking to use this misunderstood news story as an excuse to weaken the privacy rights language. And the effect here is more significant to the user than the mild reduction in risk for Mozilla.
Maybe you’re right. I have not digged into it myself a lot, just watched a few videos. BUT I think the CCPA makes the selling of anonymized and not personally identifying data still count as “selling your data” even though you cannot be identified by it. As far as I understand it they are not doing anything new, but just reacting to a changing legal landscape. I might be wrong about it, but I don’t want to believe that the only FOSS browser enshittifies…
And as a friend of mine often states “don’t assume it’s malice if something can be explained by stupidity”