An Update on our Terms of Use

[AshleyT]

On Wednesday we shared that we’re introducing a new Terms of Use (TOU) and Privacy Notice for Firefox. Since then, we’ve been listening to some of our community’s concerns with parts of the TOU, specifically about licensing. Our intent was just to be as clear as possible about how we make Firefox work, but in doing so we also created some confusion and concern. With that in mind, we’re updating the language to more clearly reflect the limited scope of how Mozilla interacts with user data.

Here’s what the new language will say:

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. 

In addition, we’ve removed the reference to the Acceptable Use Policy because it seems to be causing more confusion than clarity.

Privacy FAQ

We also updated our Privacy FAQ to better address legal minutia around terms like “sells.” While we’re not reverting the FAQ, we want to provide more detail about why we made the change in the first place. Check out the full blog post to read more.

[JSSM]

Screw You!

Moderates and Skepticism FTW!

[dev9]

Been a dedicated Firefox user for over 5 years, installed it on all my devices and hell, even recommended it to everyone. But now that you're selling user data that trust is broken.

Never thought I'd have to leave..but I can't stand a browser that goes against the very values that made me chose it in the first place. I'm moving on to privacy respecting alternatives, goodbye Firefox.

[SabreWulf1986]

Scum.

You want to restore user's faith in you, configure your browser the same as LibreWolf. Zero partners. Zero data collection. Zero selling or sharing in any form what so ever. Not sure what is more infuriating, the fact you pulled this or the fact there is no alternative for users except Google based solutions which users are flocking back to until Ladybird comes along.

Better yet, stop taking money from Google, scrap your entire Firefox project and have everyone go and help the people develop the Ladybird browser instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bTquKjzos

[JSSM]

Good luck trying to figure out if it will serve for the Firefox inmigrants.

[tom25519]

The most obscure is "It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. ", I think it need to declarein the terms of use.

[NightHacker]

I honestly felt that your original wording was crystal clear and understood it from the get go.  But, sadly, there are "content providers" who are looking for conspiracies and problems to promote their channels.  I spoke out against such nonsense and vowed to continue to use Firefox.

I'm glad I have a mind of my own and am not easily swayed by some of these people who are just out for more views, to, ironically, line their own pocket$.

[seva]

You say it as if "line their own pocket$" is a bad thing. I line my own pocket$. Chrome line their own pocket$. Firefox line their own pocket$. Facebook line their own pocket$. This allows Chrome, Facebook, and Firefox to continue to exist and promote their values.

Facebook explicitly says it sells user data. Chrome explicitly says it sells user data. Firefox says "we don't sell your data as many people understand it," but it's clear that Firefox is selling data in the context of California law.

You can continue to do whatever you want. I'll do whatever I want. I don't like being told that I control everything, while at the same time having to grant a "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox." Because in my opinion, granting "It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox." is synonymous with losing control.

[Haagee]

About every digital privacy advocate is loudly speaking out about a legal document that I thought I "understood from the get go". Should I:

A) Investigate further, maybe check out the 1001 privacy advocates speaking out about this on other platforms where they have no financial incentives to do so.

B) Assume that my initial impression was flawless, every single voice in the field of digital privacy has just joined one big conspiracy.

[CAust]

Haagee,

I suggest A investigate further. 

The second is unlikely but possible. 

Short story. I became sick, uncontrollably fatigued, loss of memory, poor concentration, in high school decades ago. I was not right, failing school, in agony many days just trying to keep walking the energy and fatigue so low.  From all specialist doctors, to closest friends, what I was reporting, the difficulties, happen to everyone, and there was nothing medically wrong.  I have spent 4 decades seeking recognition of the disease I had.  It was a post viral infection syndrome (ME/CFS) back then. 

When the covid virus appeared in China and began to spread, I tried to forwarn my government of a post viral fall out from this virus. I began doing so only 6 weeks after the first mention this new virus in public media.  I had a study up and going at Stanford/Harvard by end of March 2020. I predicted the rate of people not recovering at around 1%. That has happened. Many struggling, not recovering as I did in high school, and for decades after.  That post viral condition now known as "Long covid".  I was singularly alone, and fully correct, and 12 months ahead in my prediction of every advising medical body to governments around the world, and the WHO.

So, there can be occasions where the united majority in response is wrong, and you are seeing correctly.

So I would value it if you do investigate further. Others should too.  We need to step up on these issues and investigate, not just surface react. 

If it turns out Firefox is intending to sell user data in the way most are concerned, for money, to data brokers or government, then we need as the users to hold Firefox management to account. 

If it is as they say, just a shift in wording necessary for legal reasons, with no real change, then we need to not waste our time and value a browser that does, and for me, has enabled better online privacy. I do not get spam with my careful use, unlike so many.

I think the answer is possibly a mixture of both.

I note Signal is under pressure to move its secure base, with Sweden ( I think ) planning to bring in new legislation requiring that it must keep data of users and hand it over.  World control of private activities and data does equal world control, and not by those we elect. These are serious issues. As even Edward Snowden has confirmed. And his original NSA boss.

If you do research, and find others to assist and assess, let us know what you come up with.