Firefox maker Mozilla deleted a promise to never sell its users’ personal data and is trying to assure worried users that its approach to privacy hasn’t fundamentally changed. Until recently, a Firefox FAQ promised that the browser maker never has and never will sell its users’ personal data. An archived version from January 30 says:

Does Firefox sell your personal data?

Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That’s a promise.

That promise is removed from the current version. There’s also a notable change in a data privacy FAQ that used to say, “Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you, and we don’t buy data about you.”

The data privacy FAQ now explains that Mozilla is no longer making blanket promises about not selling data because some legal jurisdictions define “sale” in a very broad way:

Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data”), and we don’t buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).

Mozilla didn’t say which legal jurisdictions have these broad definitions.

  • ChonkaLoo@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 hour ago

    I don’t like this but it’s gonna take more for me to switch. I am very happy with Firefox for my use-case and workflow it works really well. However I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by starting to take away some of the most crucial advantages with Firefox compared to Chrome. I mean if both are awful for privacy then why use Firefox?

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      26 minutes ago

      Mind you, this is just step one and other steps WILL follow. Mozilla looked at other enshittified products from large companies that make a lot of money and thought “we could have that too!”

      It’s a pattern I keep seeing, over and over. This is the end of Firefox as we knew it. I’m sure a good fork, run by a non profit foundation will sprout soon enough, but the name for a privacy browser won’t be Firefox no more

    • And009@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      45 minutes ago

      And what they say about being commercially viable is true, they can’t die on this hill. It means death of complete privacy either way.

      • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        30 minutes ago

        Mozilla are a non profit organisation. Their recent blog post says that they will invest in advertising to increase short-term revenue that they need to “grow”. The blog goes on to talk about the increase in board members, and new leaders being added. The CEO and these new leaders are highly paid…

        To me this looks bad. It looks to me that Mozilla’s new leaders have pushed out the old; and are now moving towards advertising and selling user data not because they need it to stabilise and survive, but because they need it to pay the people making the decision to burn trust and reputation. It has become a top-heavy organisation, and greed has seeped in.

        A few people will be self-enriched by this, and then the orgasation will be weaker as a result.

  • squire3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    31 minutes ago

    If Firefox is losing its footing as a privacy focused browser then where do we go? If your on Mac maybe Safari?

  • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 minutes ago

    so is this them trying to protect its users while adding nuance for the sake of legal protections, or is this them pretending to do that in order to profit off its users?

  • mhague@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 hours ago

    I don’t get how something is allowed to be labeled “free” when the terms of usage make you barter your data.

    • Flipper@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      46 minutes ago

      There are different kinds of free. Free beer, free speech and free weekend are three different kinds of free that software can have, but not necessarily at the same time.

      • 🅃🅾🅆🅴🄻🅸🄴@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        48 minutes ago

        Tor/Mullvad are the only acceptable options if you genuinely want the best for your privacy. Mullvad browser is a bit less of a hassle than Tor but not by much. If adamant about staying away from Gecko (Firefox) and Chromium browsers then WebKit forked browsers are sort of the last options.

        At this point I’m beginning to look at going online as something that is inherently dangerous (for lack of a better word) and that needs to be done with care. There is no meaningful way to stay private anymore, and by connecting and interacting you are always painting a target on your back with long-lasting consequences that we can’t imagine yet. It’s not looking great right now, my dudes.

        • And009@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          43 minutes ago

          How does Mullvad work on legacy websites? Never heard a Dev say they tested for anything other than chrome, safari, edge & firefox

  • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Mozilla posted an update:

    Update at 10:20 pm ET: Mozilla has since announced a change to the license language to address user complaints. It now says, “You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.”

    • vane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Why they need users ? If they operate Firefox by themselves why they not start paying for power usage for hosting Firefox on my machine.

  • betanumerus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    At least Ecosia plants trees, and the way those trees produce oxygen and absorb CO2 is a benefit to me.

    • neclimdul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Between the fact I’ve been using a date picker for ages in Firefox, the fact dates and times are hard, and the title of the issue that’s clearly a zombie issue. I’m surprised they were able to close it at all.

    • unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      They have also had this issue open for 20 years.

      And this amounts to just allowing the user to specify a different directory for Firefox on Linux (~/.mozilla is terrible).

      Frankly unacceptable.

    • coolmojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 hours ago

      This whole thing does not matter if you are living in the US anyway become of the Third-party doctrine that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties have "no reasonable expectation of privacy in that information.

  • wall_panel_96@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I use brave and librewolf, anybody know if those are still safe from this dort of thing? (Probably not I guess, so what browsers are left?)

  • cley_faye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Don’t collect anything on your own and don’t sell the things you don’t collect. Bam, problem solved.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 hours ago

    palemoon is just firefox from the pre quantum days before the webextension enshittification and all they need is a decent mobile app and their own sync

  • zecg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    10 hours ago

    We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate,

    Fuck off Mozilla. Maybe don’t pay CEOs millions and don’t force things like Pocket and LLMs on users if you want to be commercially viable, I’d gladly pay for Firefox that doesn’t make me dodge new features and services. But it would be a donation towards development of a browser that is commons, since you have no product to sell, only GPL’d code that’s mine as much as yours.

    You have NO fucking leverage, Firefox is better than Chrome, but there’s projects that will gladly repackage your code with no telemetry whatsoever for any platform while you’re brainstorming just the right amount of monetization to prevent the frog from jumping.

    It’s kind of sad I don’t use Chrome and therefore never think of it, while I like and use Firefox and am therefore constantly at odds with Mozilla.

    • Ledericas@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      59 minutes ago

      A lot of these browsers seems to be obsessed with AI that nobody wants.