Comment by chmod775

1 year ago

No. It doesn't say that.

If you want to claim otherwise, show where it says that and elaborate. This style of "argument" leads nowhere. You're stringing together vague statements and claims, leaving it to the imagination of the reader to tie them into the matter at hand. Maybe you want to do your own dissection of the sentence we are arguing about to make your reading of it clear.

8 comments

chmod775

qiqitori 1 year ago

I think you're interpreting "as you indicate with your use of Firefox." in some weird charitable way. Law doesn't work like that.

chmod775 1 year ago
No, I'm not. I'm interpreting it precisely as written using the rules of the English language. Lawyers get paid good money to word them very precisely.
- sirz_benjie 1 year ago
  
  I appreciate your candor and good-faith, benefit-of-the-doubt reading of this clause.
  However,
  > Lawyers get paid good money to word them very precisely.
  This is true, but not in the way you are presenting. The precision is often to provide unilateral freedom under the guise of protection. They will "lawyer" you. "As indicated by you" is a grossly broad phrase. An indication is not an express, enthusiastic consent. (FWIW browsers have a lot of lessons to learn from sexual misconduct training, but I digress).
  Importantly, you are making an implicit assumption that actually is not protected by the statement. And that is when the intention was shared. If you accept the terms of a Mozilla service elsewhere that indicate you are amenable to, for instance, being served ads in exchange for using the browser a certain way --it can now be argued that the data can be exfiltrated.
  So, there are two points of failure with your assessment.
  1. "Indicated by you" is subjective and Mozilla can solidly argue implicit consent or action 2. The indication need not be contained to the same operation which which the information in question is being sent.
  
  2 replies →

ykonstant 1 year ago

You have been nitpicking on minutiae while blatantly ignoring the broader context. What is your stance on Mozilla removing the "we don't sell your data" clause as indicated in other comments? You have been latching on wordings and dragging people in clarification contests, but have been carefully avoiding to respond to this not at all vague statement/fact.

Here, let me repeat some of the comments you ignored:

ndiddy 4 hours ago | unvote | parent | prev | next [–]

Given that Mozilla updated their site a couple days ago to remove any wording along the lines of "Firefox will never sell your data to advertisers" when a flag associated with the new Firefox terms of use is enabled (see https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b...), I'm not so sure that this is a CYA about standard web browser usage.

theturtletalks 4 hours ago | unvote | root | parent | next [–]

> {% if switch('firefox-tou') %}

      <p>Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too.</p>

    {% else %}

      <p>Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too.</p>

    {% endif %}

The proof is in the code, great work.

chmod775 1 year ago
> You have been nitpicking on minutiae while blatantly ignoring the broader context. What is your stance on Mozilla removing the "we don't sell your data" clause as indicated in other comments?
Why do you care about my stance?
I'm just here trying to correct a misreading of a specific instance of "lawyerspeak" and am not interested in joining some ideological battle where you believe me on the opposing side. It's not my kind of past time. I'm more interested in making sure I fully understand a matter, often by bouncing my interpretations off other people. I could not care less about joining some online brawl and making my side seem right by any means necessary.
What you're bringing up has no bearing on this conversation - it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence people were confused about at all.
That's why I was ignoring these kinds of replies. I just don't care for it.
- shkkmo 1 year ago
  
  > I'm more interested in making sure I fully understand a matter, often by bouncing my interpretations off other people.
  Are you a lawyer?
  You've been doing more than "bouncing my interpretations of other people". You've been confidently telling people that your interpretation is correct and that concerns about this granting Firefox legal cover to do much more with user data are baseless.
  > navigate, experience, and interact
  You claims these words are restrictive, but they really aren't.
  Did you write an reddit post about air condidtioners? Does that indicate an interest in buying an air conditioner? Can mozilla now sell/share that data with advertisers so you can experience ads related to air-conditioners?
  Those three words provide a huge amount of wiggle room.
  If you truly want to "fully understand a matter", it hells to look at the entire context.