Mozilla revises Firefox Terms & Privacy Notice to address user concerns over data privacy
Following user backlash over an updated Terms of Use (TOU) and Privacy Notice, Mozilla has responded with revisions aimed at addressing community concerns, particularly regarding licensing. The initial intent was to clarify Firefox's operation, but it inadvertently caused confusion.
The revised TOU now explicitly state that Mozilla requires certain rights to operate Firefox, including processing user data as outlined in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It emphasizes that Mozilla does not gain ownership of user content, only a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to fulfill user requests. Additionally, references to the “Acceptable Use Policy” have been removed due to their confusing nature.
Mozilla has also updated its Privacy FAQ to clarify legal terms, particularly the concept of “selling data”. The company aims to assure users that it does not engage in data sales as commonly perceived.
- Web Browser
- Free
- Open Source
Related news
External links
- An update on our Terms of UseMozilla • Official source
- Mozilla rewrites Firefox's Terms of Use after user backlashTechCrunch
- Mozilla Revises Firefox Terms of Use After Inflaming Users Over Data UsageTechRepublic
- Mozilla reverses course on its terms of useLWN.net
Comments
Remember when Firefox had over 30% market share?
Pepperridge Farm remembers.
Considering the responses here it is clear they still were not clear enough in detail. It was a non issue from the start. Certain data is sent to Mozilla or handled by Firefox in order to operate normally. No where have I seen anyone complaining point to any new privacy threat in the source code and I get attacked every time I point it out instead of any actual tangible threat proven or any explanation if exactly what data they suspected of being sold. It's all just a knee-jerk reaction to poor phrasing by Mozilla. Nothing stops you from using the Arkenfox user.js to harden Firefox either.
But why did they remove exactly this part? Poor phrasing on such a major issue? Not really. They are planning to sell data or to gain profit. I mean Mozilla is getting worse since years. This is just another step down. I don't need any proof because they removed this already. If this was not their inzention they must clarify it. I don't depend on it. I still have a choice.
"Mozilla revises Firefox Terms & Privacy Notice to address user concerns over data privacy"...... User concerns means (is an euphemism) for MASSIVE Firefox uninstallations.
Ok Firefox, you're gambling with the people who made you big. I will not use Firefox itself anymore. I will switch to Libreworf and Mullvad Browser. Personally I don't trust Firefox much anymore. Too many things happened over past months.
Yeah, when you don't trust a big company, which is regularly being scrutinized, it only makes sense to switch to an offshoot managed by a few nobodies that bear zero to no accountability
The big companies have basically no accountability and face pretty much no repercussions for their actions, so remind me again why we should trust them.......
I couldnt reply to you in my own comment directly. Right on Mozilla's website they clearly tell you why they changed the phrasing is because of the vagueness of what "sell" even means in legal terms and they said they do not sell any data in the sense of what people think of selling data to mean.
There is the saying "if you aren't willing to pay for a product, YOU are the product". I think it's worth taking a step back and trying to ask where the real problem lies. As I see it, consumers need and want web browsers, but we aren't generally willing to pay for them. Mozilla foundation receives large cash investments from Google, who doesn't want their Chrome browser to be seen as a monopoly by government regulators. They acquired an advertising firm, Anonym, which means their core business is in advertising. This is not shocking - the funding for important software has to come from somewhere. If individual users won't pay, there are large firms who will step in to fill the gap. But it does come at a price.
We CAN try to flee to various forks (Librewolf, Zen, Floorp, Mullvad, et al), but as we have seen with Chrome's manifest V2 to V3 switch, which breaks pro-consumer extensions like uBlock origin, this solution has serious drawbacks. As Google controls the codebase for Chrome, and thus was able to impose the manifest V3 change upon consumers, Mozilla likewise always holds the "keys to the kingdom" in terms of features. Downstream forks and releases may not have resources to overcome unwanted changes and additions to the parent project.
I have hope for Ladybird - but it will be some time before that is in a useful state.