@_marco_@masto.pt @ponda @thelinuxEXP@mastodon.social We also wanted to additionally clarify that we won't be adopting the Firefox Terms of Use for Thunderbird, either on desktop or on mobile.
Thought this was interesting and worth knowing about
legally,“sell” includes things that most people wouldn’t consider a sale in normal parlance
Like what, any specific examples?
I have been hearing this repeatedly as a talking point from people defending Firefox but without any specific example of what they do and don’t allow themselves to take and sell, it rings quite hollow.
The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because, in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”
If they give anybody any information for any reason, they open themselves to litigation - however frivolous and unwarranted - because the laws are written to be intentionally vague, to capture a wide variety of scenarios, including those that the law does not explicitly state. There are tons of valuable exchanges that could occur other than strictly data for money, and those exchanges are therefore captured within this new legal definition. To protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits and to remain consistent within the new definitions of these laws, Firefox/Mozilla has changed their Terms of Use. Their uses of data are outlined within their Privacy Policy (linked within the above post).
I suppose this information is only valuable if one trusts Mozilla - one of the most stalwart, dedicated, and outspoken advocates for consumer rights in the digital age.
I’m not saying Mozilla is infallible or above reproach - nobody/nothing is or should be considered so - but if I’m gonna trust any group that says “I’m not fucking you over” it’s gonna be the group that has a consistent and very clear history of championing the idea of not fucking people over
Doesn’t the new wording also include monetary exchange as well. Wouldn’t that mean they could sell your data at anytime even if they are currently not?
To be clear, I’m not particularly interested in defending Mozilla. This confusing mess is at least partly their fault, and I think users are right to hold them accountable. I just want people to be able to make informed decisions and not ones based on the internet blowing things up needlessly.
Rather than repeat myself, here’s my comment to someone who asked basically the same thing.
Like what, any specific examples?
I have been hearing this repeatedly as a talking point from people defending Firefox but without any specific example of what they do and don’t allow themselves to take and sell, it rings quite hollow.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
If they give anybody any information for any reason, they open themselves to litigation - however frivolous and unwarranted - because the laws are written to be intentionally vague, to capture a wide variety of scenarios, including those that the law does not explicitly state. There are tons of valuable exchanges that could occur other than strictly data for money, and those exchanges are therefore captured within this new legal definition. To protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits and to remain consistent within the new definitions of these laws, Firefox/Mozilla has changed their Terms of Use. Their uses of data are outlined within their Privacy Policy (linked within the above post).
I suppose this information is only valuable if one trusts Mozilla - one of the most stalwart, dedicated, and outspoken advocates for consumer rights in the digital age.
I’m not saying Mozilla is infallible or above reproach - nobody/nothing is or should be considered so - but if I’m gonna trust any group that says “I’m not fucking you over” it’s gonna be the group that has a consistent and very clear history of championing the idea of not fucking people over
Doesn’t the new wording also include monetary exchange as well. Wouldn’t that mean they could sell your data at anytime even if they are currently not?
To be clear, I’m not particularly interested in defending Mozilla. This confusing mess is at least partly their fault, and I think users are right to hold them accountable. I just want people to be able to make informed decisions and not ones based on the internet blowing things up needlessly.
Rather than repeat myself, here’s my comment to someone who asked basically the same thing.
https://reddthat.com/comment/17046485