They’re the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don’t want my
painprivacy taken away. I need mypainprivacy!
They’re the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don’t want my
painprivacy taken away. I need mypainprivacy!
No, they’re not. No software company has ever needed legal cover for that and nothing changed in the legal landscape to create that need now. To pretend that there is such a need is to deliberately misrepresent the fundamental nature of what a product, such as software running locally on the user’s machine, actually is.
The only justification for having ToS is if Mozilla is transforming Firefox into a service that depends on communication with Mozilla’s servers themselves, which is absolutely not just “typing a URL into the URL bar!”
I think their blog makes it clear that it isn’t them that’s changing
Its that legal definitions are changing around them and they need to reflect that in their terms.
In a non-binding post they said that. In the ToS they say otherwise. “Here, sign this contract, I assure you it doesn’t do what it says” is how literal scams work. Laws aren’t changing anywhere, they are
you can skip the signature part (i signed it with a fake name cornelius flycatcher)
No, that’s what they claim, but it’s bullshit. Even the most “broad and evolving” definition of “sale of data” still entails Mozilla having the data at all in the first place, and that’s the bright red line they shouldn’t be crossing!
If you want to get into the blog, here’s the relevant part:
See that? That, right there: that’s the entirely fucking unacceptable part!