An Update on our Terms of Use

[AshleyT]

On Wednesday we shared that we’re introducing a new Terms of Use (TOU) and Privacy Notice for Firefox. Since then, we’ve been listening to some of our community’s concerns with parts of the TOU, specifically about licensing. Our intent was just to be as clear as possible about how we make Firefox work, but in doing so we also created some confusion and concern. With that in mind, we’re updating the language to more clearly reflect the limited scope of how Mozilla interacts with user data.

Here’s what the new language will say:

You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content. 

In addition, we’ve removed the reference to the Acceptable Use Policy because it seems to be causing more confusion than clarity.

Privacy FAQ

We also updated our Privacy FAQ to better address legal minutia around terms like “sells.” While we’re not reverting the FAQ, we want to provide more detail about why we made the change in the first place. Check out the full blog post to read more.

[manfredland]

Extremely vague wording "clarified" with slightly less vague wording.

Well done. *claps slowly*

Over the last few years Firefox distanced itself more and more from their core job of being a freaking web browser. After using Firefox since it was still called "Firebird" more than 20 years ago I'm currently removing all Firefox installations of my familys computers, personal devices and where possible work devices and advise everyone to do the same.

This was the last straw after years of questionable things.
Remember still the "Cliqz" story?
That crappy Pocket stuff?
Introducing telemetry you have to opt-out?
The "Mr Robot" addon they secretly installed on computers 2017?
Privacy Preserving Attribution (PPA) ? (what a joke)

Quick workaround is Librewolf, still pondering about the long term solution.

At least Google does not lie us in the face about selling our data.

And yes, I registered just to tell you to gtfo of my face.

[Siph]

I want to echo some of the expressed sentiments on here.

Quoting from the blog post:

---

---

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. 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.”

---

This definition of "selling data" is sufficiently broad and perfectly outline what most people would think of as "sale of data". All the things outlined in this definition is indeed things I do not want Firefox to do with my personal data, no caveats or exceptions. It’s a hard requirement for any company that claims to guarantee "privacy".

Why are you trying to find loopholes about these kinds of regulations that you claim to be a long-time supporter of? Don’t you realize how hypocritical that sounds?

Corporate PR is so exhausting, I wish it were in your financial interest to be honest with us about the goals and philosophies of Mozilla’s leadership. We all know these forum and blog posts are not legally binding, and only what’s in the TOS is, and when the time for litigation comes, you will defend yourself with it no matter what.

[smb8]

"You know Firefox sells your data now, right?"

This is how this whole controversy is going to be summarized when people talk about Firefox.

[Haagee]

You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content. 

-You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox.  -  It's the Terms of Use. You have to actually spell out which specific rights people give up when using the software. I don't know which corporate lawyer ever considered four sentences leaning on "the rights necessary to operate Firefox" as specific enough to hold up in court.

-This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice.  -  Now we're getting somewhere. Where the first line can be scrapped entirely, this actually spells out that Mozilla has the right to process our data as described in the Privacy Notice. This is boiler plate stuff, makes perfect sense to be in any TOS. The Privacy Notice itself includes some very disturbing sections about advertising, sponsored content and sharing data with third parties, but that's for another post.

-It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. -  Terrible wording. Way too short, way too non-specific. This is shooting yourself in the foot for when these terms ever touch a courtroom. Worldwide, royalty-free and nonexclusive are at least in the right ball-park, that is how you would describe the kind of license that you seem to be aiming for. But you're missing about 90% of the needed specifiers for this to hold up. What content? For how long? Is it perpetual? Can it be revoked? What actions can Mozilla take with it? How does this intersect with local laws? How is legally restricted input handled? This is normally six paragraphs of legalese, for licensing digital content that is a lot less sensitive that what you're hitting here. A single-sentence claim to a license, for every single thing a user inputs, for a global digital service - this is legal insanity. Not to mention that "for the purpose" is the legal qualifier for stating why you initially want this license, and not what you would use to restrict your use for any purposes outside of it. Although the cynic in me is starting to think that you already know that.

-This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.  -  Now that was already self-evident, nothing in these terms even hints at claiming ownership. So I assume that this is meant to catch legal laypeople, who may be been misinterpreting the sentences before it as a claim to ownership. Turning down the legalese, going back to regular English to clear something up for regular users. Which I would normally commend, but guess what - there is confusion about the legalese, because the legalese doesn't do what is required. Get this sentence out of there, fix the actual section before it. This is not just unclear to laypeople. This is too unclear to function as terms of service.

[Llammissar]

Okay, so the promise about Firefox never selling my personal data is going back into the FAQ, right?

[thisisausername]

That’s the only way to make amends, and then you will be bailing a ship with a hole in the hull! Just switch to LibreWolf, almost the same lol.

[spipau]

I am a Firefox user and promoter since 15 years and I just installed an alternative for the first time. You finally lost track of your mission and you will go down if you go through with this. A sad day for privacy…

[FredJupiter]

Apparently, the Mozilla organizations came to the conclusion that these data policy changes were minor and could easily fly under the radar. Our companies' will remove Firefox completely by March 15th from each and every workstation if the change is not revoked. Thanks to AshleyT to at least reporting the violation.

[thisisausername]

Switched to LibreWolf, Staying there for the future! FOREVER

[seva]

Mozilla is seeing a spike in Firefox usage right now, as users migrate their data, and Mozilla thinks, "Wow, this is the Streisand effect, we did something stupid, and we've got more users!!!"

And when a Mozilla employee goes to his boss and says, "Can we explain the legal language?", the boss replies, "Are you crazy? We've got more Firefox usage now, we need even more vague legal language and even more sales of user data!!!"

In a few weeks, users will migrate their data, and Firefox usage will start to decline. If this decline is rapid, for example, reaching 10%, Mozilla will start explaining the legal language, trying to prevent the decline. However, this will not do much, because a person who has completely switched to a new browser uses a new browser and does not need to return to Firefox. Especially in the context of Mozilla continuing to lie and not admitting to selling user data to third parties.

I also think Mozilla will call the sale of user data some phrase that managers have invented, such as "privacy assurance". For example, selling data to Facebook will be called "privacy assurance with Facebook". And selling data to Microsoft will be called "privacy assurance with Microsoft". And in some time Mozilla will publish a big article on the blog called "Mozilla Know-How: Privacy Assurance in Working with Partners". The article will tell how Mozilla increased the management apparatus by 83%, and how this management apparatus contributed to an increase in privacy by 38% in the process of "privacy assurance" in working with partners.

[tetryonx]

Unfortunately, I am in the process of uninstalling Firefox and migrating my household due to these changes. Whoever decided these changes should be let go because they clearly didn't think of the ramifications of removing a privacy guarantee with a loud and vocal community.

[Syntaxerror]

Not good enough. The Californian definition of "selling data" is exactly and explicitly what I DO NOT WANT YOU TO DO.

[wildweasel]

In my opinion, my browser should do only one thing with my data: if I request to send data, it should send the data. If I request to receive data, it should allow me to receive that data. The browser should not be using any of that data toward its own ends or the ends of the controlling interest behind that browser.

My words are my own. My images are my own. Under no circumstances do I permit my browser to attempt to interpret those words and images in order to, I don't know, show me news articles that it thinks are related. I disable nearly every "suggested" feature in Firefox for that reason. I am not interested in my Browser Experience being automatically tailored. I do not want a Browser Experience. I just want to Use Websites. If I want the browser to monitor me, I will specifically ask for that. Twenty years down the line from switching to Firefox in the first place, I have yet to ever ask for that.

Find some other way to monetize, please. This should not be tolerated.

[yomk]

I am still confused and concerned. The new wording did not clarify things for me at all, but I seriously hope that this does NOT mean there will be any AI integration or using anything we do or post on Firefox.

[kungfujoe]

This is an improvement, since the rights are only granted for the purposes of tailoring my experience in my browsers (and not for "making T-shirts of my art" as another commenter says) but it still raises some important questions, like

1 - Why is there no exception mentioned for private browser tabs/windows? They should not be used for personalization, so none of that information should be sent to Mozilla for ANY purpose. That's why they're... you know... private!

2 - Why is there no ability to opt out of this? Many people do not WANT personalized advertisements, personalized search suggestions, etc, and if they don't want those personalizations, there's no reason for anything they enter into their browser to be made available to Mozilla at all unless they're entering something into a site on a Mozilla server, like I am right now.

[seva]

This is an introduction to make it clear. You can skip to the "end of introduction" if you're lazy.

I'm an illustrator, and I make drawings for clients. Along with the contract, we sign a copyright transfer agreement, which discusses the limits within which I allow the use of my work. For example, the client says that he wants to use my drawing on advertising posters in Poland. Then I transfer the rights to the client to use the drawing for printed advertising in Poland for 5 years.

If I grant the client general rights, the client can sell the rights to my drawing to a T-shirt manufacturer, a mug manufacturer, and a cartoon manufacturer so that the cartoon manufacturer can use my characters in a cartoon.

That's why the copyright transfer agreement discusses:
— purpose of use;
— region of use;
— periods of use;
— the right to transfer or sell the rights to other persons.

I have my copy, and the client has his copy. If the customer breaches the agreement, I can sue the customer to recover my lost profits.

End of introduction.

What about the rights I transfer to Mozilla?
— purpose is defined in a separate document;
— region of use is worldwide;
— period of use is indefinite;
— right to transfer or sell rights to use to a third party — yes, I grant Mozilla the right to transfer or sell rights to use to a third party.

Mozilla states that the third party will use the data in accordance with the third party's agreement with Mozilla. Mozilla does not disclose the exact terms of the agreement, i.e. how the partners will use my data. By agreeing to transfer my data to Mozilla, I agree that Mozilla will determine in its sole discretion how the third party will use my data. Although the Privacy Policy limits Mozilla's ability to process my data, the Privacy Policy does not limit Mozilla's ability to grant rights to third parties.

The clauses that describe the purpose of using my data do not specify whether Mozilla will involve third parties or not. Since there is no prohibition and I have already given my consent to transfer to third parties, Mozilla can do this at its own discretion. For any purpose specified in the Privacy Policy, Mozilla can involve a third party and grant the third party rights to my data. The list of rights that Mozilla grants to third parties, as we know, is determined by Mozilla at its own discretion.

Look at the clause "To adapt Firefox to your needs". Under this clause, Mozilla can do anything it wants with all content that has passed through Firefox for the purpose of adaptation, including transferring content to third parties. For example, I wrote a computer game. The game was made in Unity and Visual Studio, and the git was a private git on github. However, before releasing it, I decided to download the git archive through Mozilla.

Mozilla does not have the right to release my game, I did not grant Mozilla such rights. However, I granted Mozilla the right to determine at its discretion the purpose for which my data is transferred to a third party. And, let me remind you, the Privacy Policy nowhere says that "content" is not transferred to a third party. That is, Mozilla can decide that "for the purpose of adapting Firefox" it is necessary to transfer the game code to a third party so that the third party can release this game. Of course, I can sue. But I myself granted Mozilla the right to transfer my data to third parties, and granted Mozilla the right to determine the purpose for which my data is transferred to third parties. That is, Mozilla says that "for the purpose of adapting Firefox, we granted a third party the rights to release the game," and that's it, Mozilla is innocent, and the third party is also innocent.

[TechHorse]

"You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox."

"a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox."

I am just wondering why Firefox needs such a license or rights all of a sudden?

I started using Firefox when its version numbers were still in single digits, and for around 20 years it has been doing as I request with the content I input into it without any issue without needing these rights / licenses?

I don't believe that Mozilla has any bad intensions here, I am just puzzled as to why someone decided that something that hasn't been needed up until now, suddenly is?

Like, I suspect, a lot of people, I would prefer not to have to enter into any 'contracts' or grant any rights that I don't need to, hence my query as to why the sudden requirement for this?

[hyperstown]

The part about data selling MUST be brought back. If answer is no longer applicable then change it to something that represents current situation. That's what it means to be transparent.

Also why do you need a license to data all of the sudden? Firefox existed for so long without it. Safari doesn't have one. Does your legal team knows something that Apple folks don't?

[AccountForThis]

No, we aren't doing this **bleep**. I will switch to chrome for better functionality if you are selling my data.

[whitewaterdave]

You need to allow us to accept/deny the new terms of service prior to implementing the new terms.

I don't agree to the new terms of service. I signed the agreement when you didn't sell/share personal data. That hasn't changed.

I work for the government. I use Firefox at work and home. You do not have permission to sell any of my data. I will stop using Firefox. I will delete Firefox from all person and work devices.

You've joined the ranks of other services that don't care about its users.

[whitewaterdave]

I would appreciate no further responses. I get an email every time I get a response. My inbox was flooded. 

unless you understand my situations thoroughly, you have no reason to respond. Some of the responses are inappropriate. I will not be harassed by trolls. 

[thisisausername]

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/
YOUR OWN PRINCIPLES:

Principle 4

Individuals’ security and privacy on the internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional.

[whitewaterdave]

That principle has been dropped according to everything I have read. I work in IT For the government. We use Firefox to access sensitive data on a daily basis. Our policy was to use Firefox because of privacy. It will no longer be our policy.

For most people, this is a personal issue. It is not a personal issue for me. Data will be sold and/or shared. To whom will data be shared and/or sold? They never say who it will be shared with. It is always third party. We are not given the names of who it is shared with and/or sold to. Would you hand your wallet to someone anonymous person on the street? I wouldn't.

[wwahammy]

I just want to say to @AshleyT, you shouldn't have to be here handling this. You shouldn't have to put up with righteously angry people when it's Mozilla leadership.

They're selling you out like they're selling us out. Seriously, get some leadership folks on here, it's BS that they're not handling this.

[Comrade]

@AshleyT 

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist. I generally feel like the simplest answer is [probably] the correct answer. To that end this new ToU seems intentionally designed to destroy Firefox and the Mozilla Foundation more broadly for daring to protect users and not use them as profit fodder. Especially, when looking at the previous positions held by this "new executive team" that was recently announced.

As many others have stated in other discussions, you are only the messenger and none of the disapproval regarding the new ToU is aimed at you, specifically. Hope you're able to keep that in mind as this situation unfolds. You're a relatively new employee and I don't know what your history is as a Firefox user, but I strongly encourage you to get out while you still have your integrity and dignity.

[CAust]

Yes having similar thoughts.

[baskin]

You really only need to re-add the "never have, never will" and I would be back. It is as simple as saying you will not do it.

You either reserve the right to steal from users, or you promise to not do it, if you still want to steal, you can commit crimes like the rest of us mere mortals when we lose our morals, just dont reserve the right to commit them because non-companies are second rate citizens.

[kittyd]

The deal was clear.

Mozilla has consistently taken user hostile actions in recent years on Firefox, and has had the benefit of good will to get through it. I among others tolerated it.

As was made clear, this recent destruction of principles was egregious beyond belief.

You had one choice, and only one chance. To completely revert the changes, issue a full and clear apology for the transgression, commit to being on the side of the users and developers first, and demonstrate this through action.

Any bs, any compromise, by now it was too late for it.

I guess in a way I'm happy to have such a clear conclusion to this. I will miss the Mozilla of old, and I will miss Firefox. It will never be a recommendation from me to any fellow developer, company, or friend or family. I'm on the hunt. Trying out Firefox-based as well as Chromium-based alternatives that deserve my trust.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

[kittyd]

Clarification:  None of these words are meant for the messenger nor the developers who have worked tirelessly to make and keep Firefox the amazing piece of history it is. It is meant for the executives who have spat on what Mozilla stood for.

[Vwan]

I’ve been using and promoting Firefox for more than 20 years, but I guess now is a good time to find an alternative. It’s a shame that Firefox has turned away from its principles over the years.

[Sphaela]

"new language" is not good enough, it's still very much vague and raise more questions with the "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license" part. FOSS users expect no BS like this. I hope mozilla rethink this decision and withdraw the TOU.

[adddada]

What happened guys? you used to be cool.I will stop using firefox Thanks for almost 20 years.

[jefg]

How can Firefox be used in government or corporate settings? Are governments or companies really going to agree to license all content entered into the browser to Mozilla? Have you folks thought through the implications of the licensing clause of your TOS?

[betatross]

If the definition of selling data keeps changing then Mozilla needs to keep changing how they operate to continue to not sell our data. It's the only reason people had any trust in this company. Which is now forever tarnished.

The way this is being communicated is so corporate and soulless I have no reason to believe anything you say going forwards unless this is completely reversed. I will be moving people away from the official Firefox builds as much as I possibly can until this is completely reversed. I will never recommend products from Mozilla again.

[ScottyHereCapn]

Nope. Still not good enough. I do not agree to give you a license for my data, period, much less an unlimited fiat on your part to transfer or sell it to other parties. 

Again, this is dangerous for marginalized communities. It removes one of the few applications that doesn’t contribute to the surveillance state that the US is even now setting up to hunt these people down and imprison them, if not give them the Auschwitz treatment. 

Even with aggressive anonymization, everyone leaves a trace, and any trace can be followed back to its source. Grammatical and syntactic choices, habitual words and phrases, any of this and more can be used to build a fingerprint and a profile on someone, which then can be fed to an AI crawler to scrape data looking for a match. I foresee a lot of false positives arising which puts innocents in the line of fire. 

Perhaps I am doomsaying but guess what? I work in data resiliency and security, and I have seen this happen before. 

Mozilla needs to reverse course on this, pronto. 

[Mozilla2Face]

Moved to LibreWolf. Mozilla's name is mud!

Below is a link to the important files to transfer from Firefox to LibreWolf profile. Replace the .firefox with .librewolf for file paths.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profiles-where-firefox-stores-user-data