The biggest issue in my eyes is that they removed wording that explicitly states they don’t sell user data.
Until they put that back in their TOS/PP, then I can’t trust them.
Apparently under California law by passing metadata around search to Google could possibly be considered data transfer since they get a kickback from Google. I say that’s horseshit, and if your lawyers are so worried about CA sueing Mozilla over such a technicality then you have some chicken shit lawyers.
Either way, for how horribly they managed this whole thing I’m out. Their legal and marketing teams all shit the bed on this one. How did anyone there think “yeah we’re just going to roll out that we actually do sell your data, and oh yeah also you can’t watch porn in our browser, people will be chill about that”
deleted by creator
If Betterbird is giving that notice, I wonder if this means that all forks of Firefox will also be affected in that same way.
Total pricks.
deleted by creator
OK, so I won’t try to defend Mozilla on the changes, I’m just basically keeping an eye open for what would make me run away and trying to understand the changes correctly. This whole debacle falls into the category of lost in translation I believe, the translation between legalese and actual English, or alternatively they are preparing for an anti-user move.
What I’ve been wondering about is that it might be “not so strange” from a legal point to ask for such rights, uncommon maybe but not out of the ordinary, specially if they use the data for analysis and what not. Removing the part of not selling your data is the biggest red flag in my opinion. But many people seem to put emphasis on the rights of user content.
My non-expert understanding of how it is written is as follows:
Nonexclusive: meaning they are not keeping you from going to someone else and giving them similar rights. This doesn’t mean they can give the rights to someone else, just that you are not blocked with them.
Royalty free: data can be used with no payment needed.
Worldwide: so location of Mozilla or user is irrelevant (no clue if local laws can affect this)
Neither of those terms is inherently bad… As far as I know. But the best part is “to fulfill users requests”, which as far as I can guess if they wanted to use the data in ways the user would be against or simply is not requesting would mean they are breaking their own TOU. All of that put together makes this change seemingly harmless in my opinion… Again, until you get to the point of removing “we won’t sell your data”.
deleted by creator
That’s the real problem with legalese. It comes off as precise, but the wording is actually vague, vague enough to screw you somewhere, and enough to cover their ass in too many ways. Like reading the above comment makes absolute sense with what’s in there. At the same time it also makes absolute sense if they wanted to start selling our search histories to the highest bidder.
