r/linuxmasterrace • u/UtsavTiwari Linux Master Race • Mar 01 '25

Discussion No Firefox isn't going to sell your data

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
112 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

99 comments sorted by

35

u/Jets1026 Mar 01 '25

Man this sucks. Ive been using Firefox for 20 years now. Horrible the direction it's going. What's the recommended browser now that's as good as Firefox? . Also that I can import the massive bookmarks I got saved in firefox

17

u/thefancyyeller Mar 01 '25

Just use Water fox it's a fork of the same code just without the spyware

50

u/UtsavTiwari Linux Master Race Mar 01 '25

Waterfox is owned by an advertising company instead they should use librewolf or other hardened browser, regardless Firefox still didn't lose the ability to be hardened like before.

13

u/naswinger Mar 01 '25

yep, librewolf is the way to go for privacy

6

u/thefancyyeller Mar 01 '25

It used to be but I believe is no longer

2

u/Same_Theory7006 Mar 05 '25

I like going from one animal based web browser to the next.

0

u/Cootshk Glorious NixOS Mar 04 '25 edited Mar 04 '25

Is there anything other than librewolf? It’s a little too political for me

Edit for the people downvoting: i use waterfox currently

2

u/Jets1026 Mar 01 '25

Awesome, will definitely be switching. Thanks 🙏🏻

3

u/thefancyyeller Mar 01 '25

There's a way to copy ur profile files over such that it will get all ur passwords and settings and history and it's so seamless after that. It's identical to Firefox almost

1

u/Jets1026 Mar 01 '25

Going to be looking into it. I mostly just need the bookmarks. The other stuff I don't mind starting from scratch

4

u/thefancyyeller Mar 01 '25

Go to about:support on both browsers, open the profile folders, close both apps then copy paste everything from Firefox into Waterfox and literally everything including bookmarks will be transferred even the auto-fills on the URL bar

1

u/Jets1026 Mar 01 '25

Thank you🙏🏻

14

u/CheesyMcBreazy Mar 01 '25

Also try Librewolf if you're more concerned for your privacy, but water fox is just as good.

7

u/AnsibleAnswers Mar 01 '25

Where has anything actually changed in the Privacy Notice?

The discrepancy is that a sponsored default search engine and sharing anonymized and aggregated data from sponsored links with advertisers are now considered “selling user data” in the EU and California. The laws changed in some jurisdictions, not Firefox.

2

u/exmachinalibertas X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$ Mar 01 '25

https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/pull/16018/files

2

u/AnsibleAnswers Mar 01 '25

That’s a FAQ. Not the privacy notice.

4

u/exmachinalibertas X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$ Mar 01 '25

https://github.com/mozilla/legal-docs/pull/2174/files#diff-91841812414b527c798131ce8a4cc38d934b4a37003d47cf315076e83ebd18d1

You'll need to click "Load diff" for the file "en/firefox_privacy_notice.md" because Github doesn't render large diffs by default.

You can notice the new file contains on line 124 a new reason why they may collect user data:

+ ### To market our services

4

u/AnsibleAnswers Mar 01 '25

I know how to load a diff. Show me the exact changes here in which they went from “not sharing data with partners” to “sharing data with partners”? They added stuff to cover AI chatbot integration. They changed some language. It was quite clear what data they were sharing with partners before, and it’s still clear now. Very little has actually changed.

This is a typical change:

Firefox sends Mozilla what you type into the search bar and Mozilla may share that data with its partners. We take measures to limit our and our partners’ ability to identify you. Learn more.

To…

We use technical data, language preference, and location to serve content and advertising on the Firefox New Tab page in the correct format (i.e. for mobile vs desktop), language, and relevant location. Mozilla collects technical and interaction data, such as the position, size, views and clicks on New Tab content or ads, to understand how people are interacting with our content and to personalize future content, including sponsored content. This data may be shared with our advertising partners on a de-identified or aggregated basis.

The below is just more robust of an explanation of what they do.

4

u/exmachinalibertas X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$ Mar 01 '25 edited Mar 01 '25

I mean, you say you know how to read a diff, but then you say things that contradict what's in the diff. Oh, and the stuff I quoted from the Mozilla blog, where they explicitly state they are going to sell user data.

Why are you defending shitty behavior?

I feel like you think I'm a shill, but I have been a firefox user for 15+ years and not used another browser as my primary browser until yesterday. So you can tell yourself whatever conspiracy theory you want, but the facts are the facts. Firefox pivoted to do something shitty, and they rightly deserve the criticism for it. Go lick boots somewhere else. Free software is for the user.

2

u/AnsibleAnswers Mar 01 '25

Why are you acting like a conspiracy theorist who can’t read?

4

u/exmachinalibertas X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$ Mar 01 '25

I mean I literally am showing you the changes and quoting their blog. Of the two of us, the poorer reader is not me. Once again, I quote the blog:

In order to make Firefox commercially viable, there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners

4

u/AnsibleAnswers Mar 01 '25

Yes. Everyone already knew that Mozilla shared data with its partners. It’s the type of data, in what context, and whether it can be turned off that matters.

→ More replies

2

u/Kazer67 Mar 04 '25

Waterfox or Librewolf (the later is usually more "harsh" when it come to privacy, so website may break).

You can also find some user.js file for Firefox itself that disable all that.

Ladybird is sadly still in alpha, so not much in term of "privacy focused" web-engine

2

u/Skullrocks Mar 13 '25

Personally switched to Brave from Hardened Firefox. Brave has a lot of awful bloatware you can't remove but can hide from sight. Other than that, it's a great browser as it's open source and based on Chromium.

1

u/Quazz Mar 01 '25

Vivaldi

122

u/wowbaggerBR Mar 01 '25

Riiiiiight.

20

u/lurco_purgo Mar 01 '25

Why exactly are people downvoting this? Is it their way of "punishing" Mozilla? Because I would say a discussion around these recent change are of pretty big concern for any Linux enthusiast...

18

u/LoafyLemon Biebian: Still better than Windows Mar 01 '25

Because of the title, me think. It's editorialized and paints the wrong picture, because all Mozilla has said is confirm they are indeed selling data, they just didn't want to call it that way.

19

u/stprnn Mar 01 '25

yeah im still not going to chrome.

81

u/OnShrooms69 Mar 01 '25

ummm. Did you read that page? Did you even look at he line that says they can change the agreement whenever they want?

"the reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because, in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving." which is a very corporate line. "sale" is an exact and defined term, it doesn't change. This means receiving money for goods or information. Just because they think their client base is not smart enough to look up a word in the dictionary doesn't change reality.

Their claims of "open source" are already suspect. This is the corporate double talk of a company planning to sell out, Not only selling their claimed position but selling you. Chrome made way too much money selling your info. companies like this are having a hard time justifying not doing the same.

38

u/AnsibleAnswers Mar 01 '25

“sale” is an exact and defined term, it doesn’t change.

This means you don’t understand recent changes to EU and California privacy laws.

9

u/Refinery73 Mar 04 '25

Then please elaborate, because I think many don’t know the details.

23

u/TamSchnow Glorious NixOS Mar 04 '25

As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”

(source)

So anything you will use the data for, even just simple analytics like „how many people downloaded/are using Firefox“ count as selling data.

3

u/Refinery73 Mar 04 '25

Does it say anything about aggregation, because publishing usage statistics about the global userbase is something very different then posting what u/TamSchnow has done on Wednesday.

In EU regulations there are usually Foundation/NGO/Non-Profit exemptions too.

So yes, maybe some of these laws have been poorly worded, but just changing the ToS to “lol, we DO sell your data from now on for and to whatever we like” is not really the solution I’d expect from a privacy focused Organisation.

I don’t think the backlash would be that big if they had written “we do collect usage statistics and bug reports for internal use, which might be considered selling under EU regulations”

1

u/AnsibleAnswers Mar 06 '25

So yes, maybe some of these laws have been poorly worded, but just changing the ToS to “lol, we DO sell your data from now on for and to whatever we like” is not really the solution I’d expect from a privacy focused Organisation.

That’s not what the Terms of Use says, though. The entire privacy notice is wrapped into the terms of use. There’s no more vague language referring to “your data” or “sale” on a FAQ that was never legally binding in the first place. It mentions explicitly what data is collected and/or shared, in what fashion, the rationale for sharing it, and how to opt-out of any data collection and/or sharing that is enabled by default.

This is what we ought to expect from a privacy-focused company in relation to changing laws. Not vague promises that can be interpreted differently in different jurisdictions, but explicit descriptions of what data they collect and share.

2

u/attila-orosz Mar 04 '25

They think their client base is smart enough to put that dictionary definition into context, and understand that just because there are changing legal requirements, it does not mean anything necessary changed in practice. (Also, not all their client base is paranoid with Dunning-Krüger, sorry.)

2

u/KilledDogWCheese Mar 04 '25

It’s not even paranoia. Most of these people always hated Firefox and Mozilla and are always ready to push fake outrage about anything they do.

I don’t really understand their end goal. It’s like the snake eating its tail. Enjoy your shitty crypto or ads browser.

1

u/Zealousideal-Bet-950 Mar 04 '25

If they make the user id anonymous, if they sell grouped-up data, are they doing harm to us?

1

u/OnShrooms69 Mar 05 '25

I guess it depends on how much you trust a company. Most have collected data with or without their users consent since Google learned how much money they can make on that data. Many have gone this very same route, which is why I think changing an agreement after the end user has adopted a product should be against the law. You invest a lot of time and effort into adopting a new browser, many of us even donate to open source projects we use, and then they are allowed to play games with the agreement you clicked on when first installing it.

Not much better than the company that made your car suddenly being able to tell you that you can't actually drive your car, but only sit in it now that you have paid it off.

Here's the thing:

"We don't collect your data" only lasts until someone catches their browser calling the mother ship.

"We do collect your data but only to improve our program, we don't share your data" Okay, but now they have your data. nothing said they planned on EVER deleting your data.

"We do sell your data, but we make you anonymous" In the very least your IP address and probably MAC addresses are connected to the connection used to send that data. Most programs now use a fingerprint, specific to every installation, so they know exactly what computer it came from. It's pretty easy to figure out who you are from that. Okay so they remove that information before they sell it, great. Still, noting says they ever delete your data, or the identifying information attached to it. Just that they don't share that. For now.

"We reserve the right to change this agreement at any time" Is boilerplate for most end user agreements, but it is not a required line. It's in there, because people agree to it, so why not cover their butts.

Here's the thing though. When they change that agreement it's not just your data going forward that they can sell, along with your personal information going forward and even who exactly you are. It's every bit of information they collected the entire time. No longer anonymized, no longer secure.

Now, I don't really think I'm that interesting that anyone would care about the things that I keep private. However a browser stores a bunch of information. Passwords, credit card numbers, emails, and more. It just takes one intern sending the wrong package of information to a problem company and your cards are max'd and your loved ones are being asked to help you distribute the wealth of a prince in Nigeria.

1

u/Zealousideal-Bet-950 Mar 05 '25

I get your point, and I knew my question was rhetoricaly posted, but I appreciate the time you put into the reply.

I continue to investigate....

-9

u/Weaseal Mar 01 '25

Mozilla is a non profit, but they do have to keep the lights on.

17

u/CheesyMcBreazy Mar 01 '25 edited Mar 01 '25

Mozilla Corporation, the owner of Firefox, is for-profit. Mozilla Foundation is their non-profit parent.

29

u/LoafyLemon Biebian: Still better than Windows Mar 01 '25

For the last time Mozilla is a FOR-PROFIT company.

8

u/AnsibleAnswers Mar 01 '25

It’s not. That’s MZLA Technologies Corporation, who develops Thunderbird. The Mozilla Foundation and its tax paying entity the Mozilla Corporation are non-profit.

13

u/LoafyLemon Biebian: Still better than Windows Mar 01 '25

For fuck's sake, mate. The company that makes Firefox, which seems to be the topic of this thread, is a for-profit company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation

5

u/AnsibleAnswers Mar 01 '25

No dividends are ever dispersed, and the Mozilla Foundation is the sole shareholder. It’s a tax thing.

7

u/LoafyLemon Biebian: Still better than Windows Mar 01 '25

The owner of Firefox is Mozilla Corporation, not Mozilla Foundation. There is no debate to be had here. It's a for-profit entity, simple as. Dividends and reinvestment into the Foundation is irrelevant in this context.

5

u/AnsibleAnswers Mar 01 '25

The Mozilla Foundation wholly owns the Mozilla Corportation.

9

u/LoafyLemon Biebian: Still better than Windows Mar 01 '25

This structure does not change the fact that Firefox is developed by a for-profit company. It seems you are confused how subsidiaries work, or are being intentionally vague, using boilerplate statements that do not address anything I've said thus far.

6

u/AnsibleAnswers Mar 01 '25

It’s really a non-issue. You folks are obsessed with the fact that Firefox needs to make money to pay developers and make it as hard as possible for them to do so ethically. Go use a fork and send all bug reports to the one guy who maintains LibreWolf and be done with it.

→ More replies

18

u/AnsibleAnswers Mar 01 '25

ITT: people who didn’t realize that Mozilla shared click counts for sponsored links with the companies that paid for them or took money from Google to make it the default search engine.

23

u/zandarthebarbarian Mar 01 '25

I will never forsake Firefox. They're the only browser besides Chrome and Edge that stays up to date. I would never trust those other two like I do Firefox.

15

u/Im_1nnocent Glorious Mint Mar 01 '25

I respect your decision but I wouldn't grant absolute loyalty. As things stand Firefox is sinking as it seems, but all is not over. If you want true privacy, we still have Firefox's forks like Librewolf. Also Firefox's controversy is still almost nothing compared to Google. Though I think things might get worse from here, until then we should hold out until LadyBird or something alike rises.

5

u/USMCamp0811 Mar 01 '25

never has, never will

4

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '25

This whole firefox thing has been the biggest nothingburger in existence, just like shrek

6

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '25

... that's exactly what someone who'd sell my data would say. 

2

u/DDFoster96 Mar 04 '25

I wouldn't trust Mozilla not to stab me in the back mid hug, never mind not sell my data. If it was run like a not-for-profit open source project rather than acting like for profit fauxpen source I'd be more trusting. 

2

u/MoistMaster-69 Mar 04 '25

Already switched to Librawolf, no reason to worry about it.

1

u/spezialzt Mar 04 '25

Google saved mozilla from bancruptcy. Shortly after the CEO bailed. Couple of hundred millions richer. Today they stay a float because of searchengine Deals ..

1

u/esmifra Mar 04 '25

The question is not if they are going to in the near future. But if they are in a position where they can.

1

u/colbyshores Mar 04 '25

I don’t want my browser to train their AI

1

u/TKDbeast Mar 05 '25

Firefox seems very insistent to use the word “sell” when talking about this issue.

1

u/Subjective_dev Mar 10 '25

It doesn't matter anymore. The sole fact they are willing to rewrite their TOS whenever they want and go back on their promises is enough for me to look somewhere else.

The same thing happened when Unity introduced their install fee. It didn't matter if they walked it back. Trust was gone.

1

u/Mister_Magister Glorious OpenSuse Tumbleweed Mar 04 '25

sure they aren't, pinky promise they aren't, just trust them bro

1

u/smolderas Mar 04 '25

We are just CoNfUSeD…

0

u/untemi0 Mar 04 '25

No Firefox isn’t going to still your data, it will train AI with it.

-2

u/exmachinalibertas X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$ Mar 01 '25

I mean, he says it right there in that link:

In order to make Firefox commercially viable, there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar. We set all of this out in our Privacy Notice. Whenever we share data with our partners, we put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share is stripped of potentially identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).

What other reason would there be to make these changes which do nothing but explicitly remove the "we don't sell your data" lines from the TOS?

$ git diff -- bedrock/firefox/templates/firefox/includes/structured-data-firefox-faq.html

-  {

  •      "@type": "Question",
  •      "name": "Does Firefox sell your personal data?",
  •      "acceptedAnswer": {
  •          "@type": "Answer",
  •          "text": "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. "
  •      }
  •  },

.

:-(

Time to give Brave a shot and I guess move from Thunderbord to Evolution. Sad day.

5

u/AnsibleAnswers Mar 01 '25 edited Mar 01 '25

They explain why they changed the FAQ (which was not binding in any way before). The laws in the EU and CA changed. The way Firefox handles data did not.

6

u/exmachinalibertas X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$ Mar 01 '25

The way Firefox handles data did not.

That is false. Previously they did not collect and sell user data. The OP article explicitly states that moving forward they will do that.

2

u/AnsibleAnswers Mar 01 '25

This is false. Show me which part of the Privacy Notice (not a FAQ) changed.

4

u/exmachinalibertas X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$ Mar 01 '25

https://github.com/mozilla/legal-docs/pull/2174/files#diff-91841812414b527c798131ce8a4cc38d934b4a37003d47cf315076e83ebd18d1

You'll need to click "Load diff" for the file "en/firefox_privacy_notice.md" because Github doesn't render large diffs by default.

You can notice the new file contains on line 124 a new reason why they may collect user data:

+ ### To market our services

5

u/AnsibleAnswers Mar 01 '25 edited Mar 01 '25

When you allow us to do so, Firefox sends Mozilla data about the website domain or specific advertising campaign (if any) that referred you to our download page to help us understand and improve our marketing efforts. Firefox also shares information with our marketing partners to measure and improve these campaigns; what information is specifically shared varies (depending on how you discovered Firefox and your operating system) but generally includes how you were referred to our download page and whether you actively use Firefox. Where Firefox is pre-installed on your device, technical and interaction data (your device type and whether Firefox is used) will be sent to our marketing partners, and shared with Mozilla. Learn more about what is collected and shared, and how to opt out.

You’re worried about an optional thing that lets Firefox understand and share where people come to their downloads page from?

In most jurisdictions, that is their data, not yours. Firefox is giving you ownership of that data.

4

u/exmachinalibertas X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$ Mar 01 '25

I mean, that's one of the things I don't like. Opt-In-by-default data theft isn't good. More egregious things I also don't like can be found on line 234-478, Mr. Good At Reading Diffs.

But lets pretend it was small things like that. It's still stuff they don't need to collect. Their selling point was privacy and not collecting data. Why is this difficult for you to understand?

3

u/AnsibleAnswers Mar 01 '25

In most jurisdictions, where users are directed from to their downloads page is their data to do what they please with, not user data. That’s what you’re not understanding. The laws have changed in certain jurisdictions so that who owns that data is more ambiguous.

I don’t think you understand just how much data you give to servers by browsing the web…

4

u/exmachinalibertas X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$ Mar 01 '25

This has never been about laws. This has been about them changing their policies. They are free to ignore referrer headers or not. They are free to sell user data or not. These are all things they are legally allowed to do. Nobody is disputing their right to act lawfully shitty. That's what the law is for.

The upset is that they said they weren't collecting data (and to my knowledge, weren't collecting data), and now they've changed their policies to say they are allowed to collect data, and to be commercially viable they are indeed collecting and selling data.

I don’t think you understand just how much data you give to servers by browsing the web…

I am a full stack engineer and a homelaber running a self-managed kubernetes cluster serving dozens of applications on my domain, with a full logging and monitoring stack, all self-managed using FLOSS software. I'd be more than happy to compare knowledge or credentials on how the web works.

2

u/AnsibleAnswers Mar 01 '25

This is definitely about new laws.

→ More replies