this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
220 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

38114 readers
740 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Firefox maker Mozilla deleted a promise to never sell its users' personal data and is trying to assure worried users that its approach to privacy hasn't fundamentally changed. Until recently, a Firefox FAQ promised that the browser maker never has and never will sell its users' personal data. An archived version from January 30 says:

Does Firefox sell your personal data?

Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That's a promise.

That promise is removed from the current version. There's also a notable change in a data privacy FAQ that used to say, "Mozilla doesn't sell data about you, and we don't buy data about you."

The data privacy FAQ now explains that Mozilla is no longer making blanket promises about not selling data because some legal jurisdictions define "sale" in a very broad way:

Mozilla doesn't sell data about you (in the way that most people think about "selling data"), and we don't buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of "sale of data" is extremely broad in some places, we've had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).

Mozilla didn't say which legal jurisdictions have these broad definitions.

(page 2) 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] orize@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

Look up browser called Ladybug. It is not based on either WebKit or Chromium.

It's not ready yet but it's coming.

https://discord.gg/ruhpveCz

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mspencer712@programming.dev 6 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

I hope they explain further. Honestly I don’t think the “oh crap I need to know if it’s good or bad right now!” camp is really going to care, but it still feels a little uncomfortable. (As opposed to the “this could be either way, I don’t have enough evidence to decide right now, and I’m ok with holding that uncertainty in my brain until new evidence moves my needle” camp)

Are forked builds possible with third party service references neutered?

[–] Scary_le_Poo@beehaw.org 2 points 20 hours ago

Have any of you FUD shoveling geniuses considered that this is because Firefox uses encrypted DNS by default?

[–] jay2@beehaw.org 2 points 20 hours ago

That condition is a despotic red-flag deal-breaker that should be countered with epic abandonment. Let them know this is not OK. If I hadn't uninstalled it years ago, I would have already. Lots of better browsers out there.

[–] Engywuck@lemm.ee 4 points 23 hours ago (24 children)

Mozilla's fans ready to take the pitchforks whenever other Corps. have miniscule missteps are strangely silent today.

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] nocteb@feddit.org 2 points 22 hours ago
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›