trust us bro, fr fr, we don't want to sell YOUR data....but we're gonna sell our data(that we collected from you).
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
127 points (85.5% liked)
Firefox
4577 readers
375 users here now
A community for discussion about Mozilla Firefox.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
yet
I fucked up and used their password manager for years. Now I'm going through and deleting old accounts I forgot about and saving passwords into keepass and i'll use syncthing between phone, laptop, and pc and probably backup to a private/paid cloud provider. I need to transfer accounts away from gmail as well.
Bitwarden is the way
How do I know i can trust them?
You definitely can't trust KeePass.
I used to use them but they had a pretty bad exploit for a long time and there's no telling how many master passwords were stolen.
I'm not aware of bitwarden having any exploits.
They hold some of the hardest to aquire security certifications in the industry, both server and client are open source, and they regularly undergo and post the results of external third party audits.
Out of all password managers they are by far the most trustworthy
You can always self host or audit the code yourself.
Firefox routinely ignores it's users wants & needs. The CEO is paid way too much. Take $5 million away from his annual salary to pay developers to create the best browser there ever was.
Her* salary.
100% agreed
Mozilla is not selling your data, yet, but they have removed their pledge to never sell data.
It's an intentional gradual change, and they're playing a sleight of hand trick getting you to talk about whether they actually are selling data right now rather than the canary dying.
If what they have been doing for a while, is now legally "selling your data" in California they just cannot state "we will never sell your data", as the definition of what is meant by "selling data" exactly is not the same everywhere...
They should not have deleted that statement and just clarify it instead of their absolutely messy changes...
Of course you can craft a lm EULA that makes clear their never sell your data. If they want to...
I am fed up. If google does something; google baaaaaaad, if Mozilla does something: poooor Mozilla.
Maybe you want to hold both to the same standards? Yes?
Actually no, I don't want to hold both to the same standard. Google is a for profit company. I expect them to do shady shit. I expect more out of Mozilla. Doesn't mean that they screwed this up the way the media says they did. They screwed up the communication big time
Just being non-profit doesn't mean an org won't do shady stuff.
Yeh, I have higher standards for Mozilla, but I'm also more willing to trust them if they say they are making it right.
I trust and expect very little good from Google, other than convenience.
A company that is able to pay 20 millions a year to a ceo is for profit. Change my mind
load more comments
(7 replies)
I'm more upset about the addition of terms of service to the browser itself, rather than upon activating optional hosted services.
A browser running on my computer does not result in its creator providing services, and does not need me to grant them a license to any data. The addition of such a license gives them the option to cause the browser to send Mozilla data I did not intend to send to Mozilla.
Mozilla is NOT SELLING your DATA, but they are collecting it and sharing it with select partners in order to "stay comercially viable".
They're not claiming a right to sell data right now, but they have removed the promise to not sell data.
That promise is a canary statement. When the canary dies it's an indication of something, usually that it's time to stop using the product/service.
More specifically, they aren't claiming the right to sell data however they want. However, they do have to follow all legal requests, and they can bill for this provision. If a government compells them to sell they have to oblige.
Right, that's the claim I saw from the Foundation over the weekend (yesterday?) - "selling data" is SUCH a nebulous legal concept that's different in many jurisdictions that it's borderline impossible to keep that language anymore.
...I'm not sure how completely I buy that, but I can see where they're coming from. I hope that the Mozilla Foundation will clarify what data is being harvested and sold to whom, but I've studied enough history to know that transparency fading isn't a good sign.
Yeah I mean I feel like they're just being overly cautious here (as lawyers often are) when in fact there is no real precedent to support that position. The law perhaps could be interpreted to stretch the definition of sale broadly, but in practice it isn't right now.
Frankly, I find it offensive that businesses would choose to pass that minute risk onto the customer by weakening consumer rights.
load more comments
(5 replies)
If folks are still this confused about the new changes, maybe Mozilla is still doing something wrong with their communication.
I’m still confused about why a tool would need a tos when it has freedom zero.
Otherwise great lies from them.
Nah. Those of us who tried explaning legalese here the last few days have been heavily downvoted.
Maybe sometimes people really just need to chill and accept that their gut feelings aren't facts.
If by explaining you mean hand waving and saying it's fine because it's in legal jargon instead of plain English then sure, you did a great job of explaining 👍
https://fedia.io/m/[email protected]/t/1853068/-/comment/9571333
... yeah, maybe that's not the only post I made on the subject?
You should not need legal people explaining the change of mission statements or FAQs... Imo Mozilla just really sucks at PR (it not just this time)
Well, it's not exactly made easy when folks wade through the commit history and drag something out into the public before it's properly announced. I certainly do not want Mozilla to move development behind closed doors, just so their PR looks better.
Welcome to Lemmy, where not being outraged by every single thing is against the rules!
load more comments
(1 replies)
I mean apparently according to California they might be?
I don't think that's the case. This article says that an overly generalised definition of "sale" was proposed in California law, but that language was removed before the law came into effect.
Instead of quibbling over the exact demarcation of selling data, they should stop whatever it is they are doing that could possibly be construed that way. Really, why are they even collecting the data? They have to collect it before they can sell it, and they shouldn't collect it in the first place.
Then there is that TOU gives an insane picture of what they think their role is when you use a browser. I don't feel like finding and pasting the words, but really their role in the process is they supply the browser and you use it. They should acknowledge that instead of pretending otherwise.
I think the fault lies in their online stuff. Things like their VPN, Pocket, FF Sync, etc... Also they collect the aggregated and anonymized ad click thing in the new tab page
I think you're both right here. Mozilla has been hunting for money (to keep the lights on), and in doing so diversified into many things. However, when it has come to light that some of these things are grey or even black towards their morals, the right thing to do is to stop doing it. Instead of keeping their actions in line with their morals, they're trying to change their morals to maintain their income.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(12 replies)
view more: next ›