Comment by _Algernon_
1 year ago
>UPDATE: We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses, so we want to clear that up. We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox, for example. It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice.
From their blog post[1]. Smells like bullshit to me. You haven't had this license for the last 30 years and I've had no trouble browsing. What's changed that you suddenly need it?
[1]: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-terms-o...
Definitely.
There's a hidden motive, or utter incompetence in managing this side of the licensing and communication (either by beginners "better cover you ass" MBA or lawyers thinking, which could mean it's the result of some consulting firm operation).
Either way, the sudden change without proper communication is suspicious.
They are removing all the text about how they do not sell personal data as well.
My suspicion is that this is somehow related to Mozilla Anonym: https://www.anonymco.com/
If you haven't already configured "Firefox Data Collection and Use" and "Website Advertising Preferences" to not share data you should do so immediately.
What basic functionality are they talking about? Do they list it anywhere? Or is "basic functionality" the new "security reasons" for justifying every stupid rule or policy.
Tactical vagueness.
Mere speculations: they might have been contemplating the integration of their Orbit add-on into the browser. For that, they might need some extra legal fluffs.
I have no idea what I am talking about but could it be related to future AI related features that process user data locally and/or on their servers? At least that would make some sense to me.
“process user data locally”
Ha! As if slowing down browsing and your computer would have a good result.
They're covering their asses for something. That could also just mean that the old license/terms/privacy policy doesn't actually cover the data processing they're already doing (i.e. the opt-out telemetry, the account sync mechanism, etc.). If they publicly admit that their previous agreements didn't provide enough legal cover to allow their basic data processing, the class action lawsuit vultures would be all over them.
Something something malice something incompetence.
> What's changed that you suddenly need it?
That lawyers are spooked. That's all there is. California changed the rules and that made every lawyer in an organization that can't have a portrayed legal battle with the state very nervous. Nothing in the language says that they can do things that they couldn't do before.
Absolute bullshit.