When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.
What? This sounds way too broad, as if everything we do can be used by Mozilla to do whatever they want.
Yeah I think the “you” in “help you navigate […]” is the key but it is way too broad. I had a quick look to the privacy notice and it seems quite reasonable. For each feature they either :
- process data locally (eg. for translations)
- anonymise it before sending it to partners (eg. affiliated searches 💩)
- store a minimal amount of information (eg. for FF account)
There is a paragraph about partners being legally binded to comply to their privacy policy, I guess this is about cloud providers? 🤷
So I hope they’ll take the time to clarify that…
I really hope an explanation is forthcoming as to why they need all data. It is concerning that a “privacy-focused” browser doesn’t take the time to explain that.
Until they do, I think I’m gonna give WaterFox a whirl.
Sounds pretty concerning, but I can’t find it in the article. Where did you find it?
It’s in the actual Terms of Use that’s linked in the article: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/#you-give-mozilla-certain-rights-and-permissions
I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what it means. It’s no longer a browser focused on privacy
Seems reasonable enough. Pretty short and nothing unexpected. Seems like legal box-ticking to me. Honestly I’m quite surprised they didn’t have a Terms of Use, so it’s about time.
This is a slightly odd clause though:
Any liability for Mozilla under this agreement is limited to $500.
They disclaim any liability for use of FF, but if they do have any liability then it’s limited to $500? I doubt this will ever come up but it just feels odd.
I’ve not read the privacy notice yet.
Hahahahahahaha suuuuure it’s limited to $500.
They disclaim any liability for use of FF, but if they do have any liability then it’s limited to $500? I doubt this will ever come up but it just feels odd.
Some jurisdictions don’t allow disclaiming liability, this is kind of a fall-back when that happens to attempt to limit damages. Pretty standard legal language.
