104
Should anybody trust Firefox again unless they put "we won't sell your data" back into the privacy policy? (Have they done so...? I can't tell.) (leminal.space)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
75 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Firefox is trying to gain back user trust with this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=O-xyNkvIB9g

This is a legit question: Should anybody trust Firefox again unless they put "we won't sell your data" back into the privacy policy? I'm actually not sure if they haven't already done so, let me elaborate:

https://brave.com/privacy/browser/ Brave: "We do not sell, trade, or transfer your information to any third parties." This seems to obviously be in the legally binding text part. As is this one: "It’s Brave’s policy to not collect personal data1 unless it’s necessary to provide services to our users, or to meet certain legal obligations. We do not buy or sell personal data about consumers." (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.)

However, for Firefox it seems ambiguous to me, which worries me: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/#notice There is no appearance of "sell" in the entire privacy document, excpet for the top summary where i'm not sure if it's at all legally non-binding.

Does anybody know if it is legally binding? If Mozilla were serious about it, why would they leave it ambiguous whether it is...?

Based on that, I'm not sure if Mozilla's video about getting users back is worth trusting. I wonder if it's just me.

Update for clarification: I'm not using Brave myself, and this isn't a suggestion anybody should blindly do so.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

I would love for Mozilla to fix this, which is why I try to be pragmatic and concrete. But so far, they don’t seem willing to do so.

Here's the problem - people don't care if the information is there or not. Microsoft has been disclosing their required telemetry data for years and people still thing it's an invasion of their privacy.

Take you for example - I gave you a source, you checked 1/3rd of the information in it and started complaining.

Why am I assuming you didn't bother to read the whole thing? Because you're claiming that "technical data" is too obscure of a term to figure out what it is. "Interaction Data", in your words, "can be literally a keylogger", right? Well, it's very clearly defined in the table:

Click counts, impression data, attribution data, how many searches performed, time on page, ad and sponsored tile clicks.

Which of these would you consider to be "literally a keylogger", hmm?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Point taken and I appreciate the correction, but it still seems to include e.g. all URLs which could leak all your search queries and other rather invasive conclusions. If anything, this makes me feel like it confirms Mozilla does sell data it shouldn't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    but it still seems to include e.g. all URLs which could leak all your search queries

    Which one? Interaction data? It literally cannot, or it would've been stated there.

    If anything, this makes me feel like it confirms Mozilla does sell data it shouldn’t.

    Yes, I know. That's because you don't really understand what you're reading here.

    These are not just "pinky promise" lists. These are legally binding lists of data types being shared and the data sub-processors. If you find anything incorrect there, you basically get free money in a lawsuit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •