The story I heard was that by of California’s definition of selling data, doing anything with user data that could benefit the company was considered selling data. So they updated their FAQ to be in line with that definition. But I could be wrong, if someone could point me to a good article I’d appreciate it.
Thanks! Sounds like limiting risk from the California bill is a plausible reason, but it isn’t confirmed.
Legal Definitions of “Selling Data” Under the CCPA Are Broad: As noted above, the CCPA’s definition encompasses many data-sharing practices that may not align with common understanding of “selling data”.[16] Even if Mozilla was not directly selling user data, its search partnerships, telemetry data sharing, & sponsored content could have been interpreted as data sales if Mozilla received any financial benefit from them, all of which were actions that Mozilla has already been transparent & upfront about.
Mozilla’s Search Engine Deals Could Be Considered Data Sales: As mentioned earlier, these partnerships could legally qualify as data sales under the CCPA definition, despite being an existing part of Mozilla’s business model that consumers are already aware of.[1]
Sponsored Content in Firefox’s New Tab Page Involves Data Exchange: Mozilla dReferencesisplays sponsored content and ads on the Firefox New Tab page, which may involve user interaction data being shared with advertisers.[11] Even if the data is anonymized, the CCPA considers certain types of aggregated data as personal information if it can be linked back to users.[16]
To be fair they are a company with bills to pay and they have to shield themselves from being fined or sued. At this point I assume almost everything has been backdoored to hell and I’d rather use the product from the company with better overall terms and principles.
The story I heard was that by of California’s definition of selling data, doing anything with user data that could benefit the company was considered selling data. So they updated their FAQ to be in line with that definition. But I could be wrong, if someone could point me to a good article I’d appreciate it.
Here’s Louis Rossmann’s wiki where he details it. I hope that helps.
Thanks! Sounds like limiting risk from the California bill is a plausible reason, but it isn’t confirmed.
It sounds like a bullshit excuse, to me.
If they wanted to cover their ass, they could have changed their ToS any number of different ways than what they went with.
Let’s not be naïve. All corporations are the enemy, including Mozilla.
To be fair they are a company with bills to pay and they have to shield themselves from being fined or sued. At this point I assume almost everything has been backdoored to hell and I’d rather use the product from the company with better overall terms and principles.
i’m a person with bills to pay, but if i paid those bills by endangering people, i’d be a bad person.
corporations exist to protect people from the financial and legal repercussions of their business activity.
they should not exist, and so, I will celebrate if Mozilla goes into bankruptcy.
we do not need them. control of firefox should be in the hands of a not-for-profit group, not a company.
ACAB? C being Companies.
A weird number of C things fit in there.
Cops Companies CEOs
Cocker-spaniels
(Any other Donut Holes here?)
In short: yes.
You’re saying “exploiting” user data might have been more precise than “selling”. Either way I don’t want them doing it.