Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla Firefox

Mozilla Responds To Backlash Over New Terms, Saying It's Not Using People's Data for AI 76

Posted by msmash from the ticket-closed dept.
Mozilla has denied allegations that its new Firefox browser terms of service allow it to harvest user data for artificial intelligence training, following widespread criticism of the recently updated policy language. The controversy erupted after Firefox introduced terms that grant Mozilla "a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information" when users upload content through the browser, prompting competitor Brave Software's CEO Brendan Eich to suggest a business pivot toward data monetization.

"These changes are not driven by a desire by Mozilla to use people's data for AI or sell it to advertisers," Mozilla spokesperson Kenya Friend-Daniel told TechCrunch. "Our ability to use data is still limited by what we disclose in the Privacy Notice." The company clarified that its AI features operate locally on users' devices and don't send content data to Mozilla. Any data shared with advertisers is provided only on a "de-identified or aggregated basis," according to the spokesperson. Mozilla explained it used specific legal terms -- "nonexclusive," "royalty-free," and "worldwide" -- because Firefox is free, available globally, and allows users to maintain control of their own data.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla Responds To Backlash Over New Terms, Saying It's Not Using People's Data for AI More

Mozilla Responds To Backlash Over New Terms, Saying It's Not Using People's Data for AI

Comments Filter:

  • "we promise!" (Score:5, Informative)

    by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Friday February 28, 2025 @04:32PM (#65202041) Journal

    So what ARE they doing with it?

    • There's gold in them there hills!

      • Re:"we promise!" (Score:5, Informative)

        by ls671 ( 1122017 ) on Friday February 28, 2025 @05:16PM (#65202155) Homepage

        I have been thinking about an alternative for some time. I decided to proceed two hours ago and after a quick search I installed Pale Moon.

        I copied the same tabs I had open in firefox to Pale Moon and memory usage went from 3GB to 500MB and his now 800MB after two hours of browsing in favor of Pale Moon.

        Pale Moon reminds me of the old firefox when it was using only one process back in the days. It's really great and absolutely what I was looking for. Keep in mind that using a single process might be a little less secure but I don't really care since I browse carefully and the bloat of current firefox was infuriating me more and more.

        I installed these plugins in Pale Moon:
        Swarth (Dark Reader)
        nMatrix (uMatrix like same GUI)

        Pale Moon was forked from old firefox code and is still well maintained. Anybody used to firefox will feel at home.

        Kudos to Pale Moon devs!

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I have been thinking about an alternative for some time.

          Smart money goes full retro [seamonkey-project.org]

          I do not understand why everybody continues to ignore the best browser ever made in the entire history of browsers.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ls671 ( 1122017 )

            Thanks! Might take a while before I try it although. It took me at least 2 years to finally decide to install something else as main browser this morning.

            Seem pretty well maintained as well.

            It's nice to have many choices and seamonkey looks like something I would like too. I didn't come across it in my quick search this morning but I heard about it often, just didn't know it was so well maintained still.

            Any pros and cons vs Pale Moon.

            Thanks again,

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by allo ( 1728082 )

          Pale moon has a nice UI and supports real extensions, but it has an outdated rendering engine what's both bad for security and for supporting the modern web.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Rexdude ( 747457 )
          Pale Moon has often been denigrated by Mozilla shills as 'old and insecure' - after recent updates with major version 33, compatibility for popular websites has vastly improved. It doesn't help that Google has made web standards meaningless by constantly making changes to Chrome and then shoving them into the standard as draft specs - combined with websites that don't test on anything other than Chrome. It's much worse now than the IE monopoly days. The other thing about Pale Moon is it does not integrate

    • They're selling it to 3rd parties who are using it for AI. See? Not Mozilla's fault. /sarcasm

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by narcc ( 412956 )

        It's a lot of nonsense from idiots who didn't read or understand the terms. Mozilla isn't in the wrong here.

  • weird hill to die on (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    why the fuck are they doubling down on this vague ass language? If firefox isn't doing anything new then clearly they don't need these terms, cut them out.

    • It's not vague at all. They're doubling down because they want the license... In theory any code you edit on github, any video you upload to youtube you've given a perpetual license to Mozilla to do ANYTHING IT WANTS WITH IT. They say it's not for AI, but they wouldn't collect it if they weren't using it for something that benefits them.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by narcc ( 412956 )

        False. This is what idiots who didn't read or understand the license are saying, but it's not even a little bit true.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by allo ( 1728082 )

          Then they should write into the legal text, that they are not allowed to do it. Then we're sure.

  • Wait, what? (Score:3, Informative)

    by trelanexiph ( 605826 ) on Friday February 28, 2025 @04:36PM (#65202055) Homepage
    Obligatory IANAL, but I did just finish working with my attorneys on our new privacy policy, so this is fresh in mind.

    "Mozilla explained it used specific legal terms -- "nonexclusive," "royalty-free," and "worldwide" -- because Firefox is free, available globally, and allows users to maintain control of their own data."

    This, children, is what we call lying. It is where you say a thing that isn't true.

    nonexclusive = use and sharing of data is not limited to Mozilla
    royalty-free = the user who owns/generates the data doesn't get paid (The intellectual property owner)
    worldwide = we can send your data anywhere and into any regulatory regime and you can't do anything about it.

    I don't know or care if Mozilla is using this for AI, but technically speaking, if you use Firefox to upload content you created to YouTube, Mozilla has a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to do anything they want to with your intellectual property.

    Keep in mind Mozilla is a CORPORATION. They may or may not do any given thing, but they retain these rights and licenses meaning that if EvilCorp buys Mozilla at the impending bankruptcy, your personal licenses to everything you do or transmit in Mozilla goes with it.

    • No. (Score:5, Informative)

      by jddj ( 1085169 ) on Friday February 28, 2025 @05:16PM (#65202159) Journal

      "Non-exclusive" as used here means the license you grant Mozilla doesn't prevent YOU from granting licenses to others, for free or pay.

      This part is pretty standard boilerplate for anyone who's handling your content FOR YOU. Doing what YOU have asked.

      What should scare you is the removal of "Does Firefox Sell Your Data?" From the TOS (visible in a GitHub diff).

    • Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28, 2025 @05:27PM (#65202193)

      Uh, what? Hold on, you talked to intellectual property lawyers and this is what you came up with?

      nonexclusive = Mozilla is not the only company that gets the data (e.g. you browse to Slashdot using Firefox, so Slashdot gets the data you send through Firefox). It's the opposite of something like Audible or Amazon, where if you publish your work somewhere else, they terminate your account on Amazon/Audible.
      royalty-free = Mozilla doesn't pay you for the work it does for you.
      worldwide = The Web. You do realize that spans the globe, right?

      In fact, let's look at that whole sentence:

      “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.”

      Emphasis mine.

      Further, you do realize this is legal language, not technical, right?

      Do you realize that if you upload content to YouTube, you've already agreed to give THEM the same rights, or more? Or Gmail? Or Outlook? Using Firefox to talk to YouTube doesn't give Firefox a copy of what you sent to YouTube, you used Firefox to send it to YouTube. If Firefox can't utilize that data to send it to YouTube, it's useless as a web browser.

      Keep in mind Mozilla is a CORPORATION. They may or may not do any given thing, but they retain these rights and licenses meaning that if EvilCorp buys Mozilla at the impending bankruptcy, your personal licenses to everything you do or transmit in Mozilla goes with it.

      Do you know where you are? Do you know that Slashdot is on its fifth set of owners now? Do you realize that by using this website, you have already granted the current owners access to everything you've ever done on this website?

      Or is it just Mozilla that's somehow going to nebulously use this information in some kind of hypothetical bankrupsy proceedings?

      • Using Firefox to talk to YouTube doesn't give Firefox a copy of what you sent to YouTube, you used Firefox to send it to YouTube. If Firefox can't utilize that data to send it to YouTube, it's useless as a web browser.

        Using Firefox to upload a video to Youtube does not, in any way, require Mozilla to have a copy of the video.

        Should rsync or ssh require the same agreement? After all, I can use them to copy files from one PC to another.

        So yeah, the fact that they added this mean they want a copy of the data and want to do something with it, whether to infest the browser with AI or something else.

      • LOL

        It seems pretty clear that Mozilla is now in the business of collecting your data.

        So now, you have to be as paranoid with Mozilla as you do with Microsoft.

        Microsoft promises not to use your data against you, after all, it is just telemetry to help provide a better product. Now, Mozilla is making the same promise.

        Fuck the boilerplate legalese. Mozilla just wiped out one of the strongest reasons to use Firefox. Posted from Firefox (for now)

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by narcc ( 412956 )

      What moron modded this nonsense informative?

  • And there are legitimate uses for understanding what users do with data, but the ownership of data (especially for telemetery and AI training) are different things than using data for browser operation.

    They worded incorrectly, then seemed to double down the mistake. I'm hoping they clarify their clarification-- because it's still doom for them if they don't make it PERFECTLY CLEAR that they don't own user data.

  • Firefox had a good run, maybe they can bounce back, but I won't be using them, chrome, or edge.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by narcc ( 412956 )

      There's nothing wrong with the terms. It's just a lot of nonsense from idiots who didn't read or understand them.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HiThere ( 15173 )

        That's an interesting assertion. I'd *like* to believe it, but before I do somebody needs to explain it in a believable manner. Merely making the assertion does not convince me.

        OTOH, that I don't understand legal language is not really surprising, given that many lawyers don't seem to understand it either.

  • Time is running out for the 'Fox (Score:3)

    by xack ( 5304745 ) on Friday February 28, 2025 @04:43PM (#65202093)
    The 11 trillion dollar advertising industry wants manifest v2 blockers gone, you will see more backroom deals with Firefox being targeted by the advertising industry, and don't expect Librewolf or Zen to save you either, as blocking ads will soon be seen as malware and more websites will employ drm to enforce not copyright but "adveright".

  • Only the text matters (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sphealey ( 2855 ) on Friday February 28, 2025 @04:44PM (#65202097)

    Mozilla can issue as many blog posts and "clarifications" as it likes; only the text of the EUA matters.

    • This. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by abulafia ( 7826 ) on Friday February 28, 2025 @05:18PM (#65202171)
      Mozilla needs to change the text of the license.

      I don't care how many FAQs they write about it, if you end up in court, you're not arguing about the FAQs[1].

      I do actually believe they don't intend to monetize your uploads or whatever. They keep stepping on rakes like this; that much is consistent. But again, it is the contract that matters. The org's position is looking increasingly shaky, and it is anyone's guess who will end up with their IP.

      I'm typing this in Firefox. But I soon won't be if the EULA doesn't change.

      [1] You might use them to support your position and has additional evidence, but the contract is what matters.

      • [1] You might use them to support your position and has additional evidence, but the contract is what matters.

        After decades of "interesting" results, you decide to fully trust the legal system? There is a possibility of true Justice, just like there is a the possibility that it will snow in Houston Texas on the Gulf Coast. It actually did snow there this year, but that is not the way I would be betting.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by abulafia ( 7826 )
          1. I don't "fully" trust anything.

          2. What is your interest in reducing trust in the rule of law? How does that serve you?

          3. Houston is a shithole.

  • ALL liars. All of these big people think this is the next big thing but it really isn't. People don't want this. As for firefox, Ditched it a long time ago for Librewolf. No AI in sight there. As it should be.
  • ... in the same way a putter placed in the hands of a toddler isn't FOR whacking Dad in the nuts with. But that's what's gonna happen.

  • Firefox is and will be, until Jesus comes, the browser that I will use on my devices.

    So take your bullshit Chrome, Edge, and Opera shit to the dump where it belongs. These troll stories are getting fucking old. Your money means nothing to me.

  • So if I do my tax return online using Firefox they have a license to any content I enter? If I enter a password, they have a right to store it? This sounds like you have zero privacy when using FIrefox. Is that true of all browers' terms of service. They can essentially read and store everything you post?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by narcc ( 412956 )

      No. That's not what the terms say and not what the terms mean.

      • Apparently this statement is inaccurate then?

        "controversy erupted after Firefox introduced terms that grant Mozilla "a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information" when users upload content through the browser"

        Because that seems to say very clearly that they have a license to use any information uploaded through the browser.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by narcc ( 412956 )

          Try reading more than the tiny bit you quoted. No, Mozilla is not claiming any rights to anything you upload through their browser. Don't be stupid.

          • Try reading more than the tiny bit you quoted. No, Mozilla is not claiming any rights to anything you upload through their browser. Don't be stupid.

            The little bit I quoted clearly states that whether they intended it or not. What are you reading that you think overrides that?

            Apparently there were a lot of people out there who read it that way. Mozilla changed the wording to explicitly reject the idea that thy were claiming ownership. Its clear they were and still are claiming rights to some use of some things you upload. They have it appears made it clear that they have those rights only within some specific limits.

      • What ? I got modded down for stating the obvious (below)

        I'll restate it. The problem is that the privacy policy is a distraction. They start with a motherhood statement then spend 9000 words carving out vague exceptions subject to wide interpretation.

        The hole is this . We value your pivacy buy share your data with ANY NUMBER of our "trusted" partners... who in turn can share your data with ANY NUMBER of their "trusted" partners...

        Seriously, you don't see the contradiction?

  • allows users to maintain control of their own data

    But then you need to know how and what to disable in about:config to prevent all the telemetry data going by default to their overlord Google.
    There was a time (years ago) when I held Firefox dear. That time has ended.

    I installed LibreWolf today on Devuan via the extrepo package because CloudFlare once again crippled verification for Pale Moon and other good browsers with malicious scripts, and I need some way to log in to the store site to order groceries (the alternative store is more expensive and lacks s

  • I'm willing to give them some time before I have my knee jerk reaction.

    Not too long ago the little tugboat used to calibrate 3D printers was the center of some massive controversy because the license was kind of iffy and a major website full of free 3D print files took it offline because of it. There was a bunch of stories about how the company that technically owned the rights was getting ready to abuse them and make a mess of things.

    What actually happened was the company in question had just never
  • We are selling it to the highest bidder!

  • ...this is what happens when you use AI to draft your legal documents. Better find an actual lawyer and do a chemspill patch.

    ISR, AI uses YOU!

  • Firefox is a dying browser. In 2024 they lost over 1% of the total desktop market share (7.57% to 6.26%, per https://gs.statcounter.com/bro... [statcounter.com]) ... and they don't even register on mobile (1%). That's a loss of 17% (of what they had) in one year ... and they didn't just start losing!

    Just like a failing for-profit company, they're casting about for a way to be relevant, and think adding the buzzword of the day (AI) will do that. But just like any failing company, they got there by sucking at executing, so

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by narcc ( 412956 )

      First, the current dustup is just a lot of nonsense. There is nothing wrong with the terms. It's just a lot of nonsense from people who didn't read or understand them.

      As for the rest, you don't want to live in a world without Firefox. They're the only browser left that is actually looking out for their users.

  • You were supposed to be the good guys!
    • We're not using your data
    • Well, we do, but it's limited by what we disclose in the privacy notice
    • While we don't share your data, we actually do share your data but believe us when we say it's "de-identified", no worries to be had.

    So, even if it is "de-identified" (which is never, EVER a perfect process, as many data broker will happily not tell you), even if it is aggregated, it's still processing and selling of data that have nothing to do in a browser. And let's look at that wording "our ability to use d

  • They are just using your data so they can exploit it. Well MF only has 5% of the market.

  • "They use it for AI!!!" is just the current fear, but ToS for *using* a browser is still wrong and removing "We do not use your data" clauses is wrong as well.

    Blog articles and FAQ entries are not legally binding, so change back the legal text. Anything else are just nice words, but no real actions.
    And stop thinking that using a software is subject to ToS. (Free) software has a license and that's about copying it and not about using it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by allo ( 1728082 )

      PS: By the people making it about AI, Mozilla can deflect the criticism by asserting they are not using it for AI and then use it for advertising and user tracking (without any AI).

  • The Mozilla people have no credibility left. What a shame. Firefox used to be my go-to browser, but there is no way I will touch it again. Please, feel free to burn in hell.
  • This is so ridiculousy broad. It implies that you are in a position to give them a license. No more search for lyrics, code snippet, image etc. that you don't own. I also wonder if it applies to passwords.

Slashdot Top Deals

The time spent on any item of the agenda [of a finance committee] will be in inverse proportion to the sum involved. -- C.N. Parkinson

Close