Information about the New Terms of Use and Updated Privacy Notice for Firefox

[AshleyT]

For the first time, we’re introducing a Terms of Use for Firefox, alongside an updated Privacy Notice.

Earlier today, we published a blog post explaining why we’re making this change and what it means for you.

Now, we want to hear from you.

We’re committed to engaging with our community and keeping you informed about how we build Firefox—and why we make the decisions we do. Firefox wouldn’t be where it is today without the support of our users, and we want to continue working together to build a better internet for all.

To kick off the discussion, here are a few key points from the blog post:

• Transparency matters. We’re introducing a Terms of Use to provide clarity on what users agree to before starting to browse.
• Privacy remains a priority. Our updated Privacy Notice gives a more detailed, easy-to-read explanation of our data practices.
• You stay in control. Firefox is designed to respect user choice, with responsible defaults and simple tools to manage your data.

We’d love to hear your thoughts! Check out the full blog post and share your feedback here. If you have any questions, let us know—we’ll be actively monitoring the discussion and will reply where we can.

Update

Thank you all for taking the time to share your questions and reactions. We’ve been listening and made some updates to address areas of concern. I’ve started a new discussion topic covering what’s changed in the Terms of Use based on your feedback, and clearing up a few points of confusion.

[seele0w0]

I would like to know: does the so-called “you request with the content you input in Firefox.” include all the clicks I made on https://wise.com/ with my email and password, or even on office 365?

[Duality]

are you allowed to lie? Because you say it's free but it's not you are selling my privacy so I am paying with that.

[senid]

Je souhaite que firefox continue d'être un navigateur respectueux de ma vie privée.  Les dernières CGU semblent indiquer le contraire.  Si elles sont maintenus je chercherai un autre navigateur.

[hron84]

According to your updated blogpost, you should revert this change (sorry, I am not able to link directly that diff on that specific file from GitHub) then: https://x.com/LundukeJournal/status/1895249805338886591

As per you mention you will not sell our data, it does not makes sense why you remove this statement from your website. Your blog is an "unofficial" communication channel in many terms (even if you treat as "official") as opposite to your "official" website, that is a first point when someone tries to learn about how Mozilla Foundation, especially Firefox treats their data. It would make a clear situation if you just put back this Q/A pair to your website. Otherwise, it suggests you intentionally put it out on blogpost and not on your website because you have some shady intention on that.

[manfredland]

As mentioned in the other topic:

After using and promoting Firefox for more than 20 years, this is the last straw to finally leave Firefox in the dust, following years of questionable decisions.
You don't need any license for being a webbrowser, especially if I'm not using any of your services and the "clarification" does not change anything, you still grant yourself a license to anything put through Firefox.
edit: And to be clear, even if somebody does use a Mozilla service, that kind of license would still be crazy and inacceptable.

Switching all devices I control over to Librewolf and pondering the long term solution.

Goodbye Firefox, it was fun while it lasted.

"You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

[JulienBouche]

I have been a fierce defender of Firefox since the beginning but decisions made since a few months have been eating my confidence on Firefox's values (AI, TOS...).

Your new TOS are a disaster. You can repeat ad nauseam what you believe the new TOS intentions are. The legal terms of your new TOS will be what's important. If Firefox's doesn't rollback their new TOS, I will find another internet browser.

Thanks to all who contributed to Firefox, you did a great job that has been en**bleep**ted by late decisions.

Ciao.

[finmat92]

What a shame Mozilla. What. A. Shame.

[Raph151515]

cancel any data selling and TOS update or you're done, the foundation will crash in less than a year, you have 2 weeks to respond strongly

[fraggedy_andy]

I appreciate that Mozilla modified the language of the ToU after hearing from the community. I also realize that this entire situation was an unforced error by Mozilla. I'm willing to take you all at your word that you weren't trying to harvest data to sell our private information or train AI and that this was an extremely clumsily worded statement that came back to bite you hard. I also know that a lot of other community members aren't going to be as generous, and that's fine too. I speak for myself only.

The biggest issue is that you all state that you stand for user privacy and independence on the web. That means that you have to be and do better than other companies. Your messaging is that you are for us, not others, not yourself. As such, you put yourselves onto this pedestal, not us. You have to do better to maintain that position. This was another example of Mozilla failing to hold to the messaging and reputation you've developed. The fact that you all haven't learned from past mistakes like the auto opt-in to the private advertising study or the Mr. Robot situation is disturbing.

A lot of us are going to have to decide if we are willing to give you another shot because you're developing one of the only remaining independent browser engine besides Chromium (I know Web Kit exists, but good luck finding something for Windows...). 

You will keep some users who aren't as versed on this issue as the rest of us and those of us who still believe that you're doing more good than harm.

You'll lose some who are formally done with the shenanigans and unforced errors to Firefox forks or browsers like Brave, Vivaldi, or Ungoogled Chromium.

I'm still on the fence myself. I want to believe in you. But you need to pass messaging like the original version of your ToU that caused this entire self-inflicted situation past some more people to see if it raises objections. Because this was a massive, massive failure and I can't believe that no one could see this coming.

Do better. Be better. Stop letting us down.

[outlawhayden]

For what it's worth - I just switched to waterfox. Took 10 mins, exact same (if not better functionality), could import my bookmarks etc., and I know they're not swiping my data. Recommend for everyone - clearly Mozilla can't be taken at their word anymore going forwards. Truly transparent open source alternatives are great!

[m3tabar0n]

I'll migrate all systems under my control to LibreWolf and Betterbird (Thunderbird replacement).
I've been using and promoting Firefox since the Firebird times. This is a major loss of trust that cannot be reinstated.
Nevertheless there must be some self-criticism. We the community as well as Mozilla relied too much on the Google deal. So let us donate to our most important open source projects, e.g. Linux Mint or uBO, so this disaster doesn't happen again.

[Ten]

Wtf that blogpost. Are you kidding?

> We changed our language because some jurisdictions define “sell” more broadly than most people would usually understand that word.

> 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.” 

How the hell is that "more broad than most people would usually understand that word"?

[seva]

This means that Mozilla will be selling our data as defined by California law. A third party will get our data in some way, and Mozilla will get money or a service in return.

But Mozilla thinks that we think that selling data is when Mozilla goes to a secret meeting place to a buyer and says, "username Ten went to pornhub," and the buyer says, "Okay, Mozilla, keep the five dollars."

I also think Mozilla thought that if they called the data sale "privacy-preserving attribution," no one would guess that it was selling data, and they could fool users forever.

[d9a]

I've been trying to switch back to Firefox for years. Until recently, the blockers had all been about concrete functionality I'm not willing to give up, like customizable keyboard shortcuts. Features that are well within the realm of possibility to eventually develop, and are sometimes even on an actual roadmap. With any other browser that didn't meet my needs I'd move on and forget about it, but I remember the good times I've had with Firefox in years past, and Mozilla is supposed to be the good guys. Killing off the Foundation's advocacy division shook that view, but if that's what it takes to keep the core browser project viable, I guess it is what it is. This privacy policy change is a totally different beast, and isn't something I can shake off and pretend isn't a problem.

The latest update does basically nothing to address the issue at hand. If anything, it confirms the very accusations it claims to be denying:

Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data”), and we don’t buy data about you. We changed our language because some jurisdictions define “sell” more broadly than most people would usually understand that word.

You know who else makes this exact argument? Data brokers, along with the myriad companies they source their data from. Here's an example from the notoriously privacy-unfriendly Clearview AI:

Clearview does not sell your personal information, as that term is traditionally understood.  However, Clearview’s disclosure of photos collected from the Internet is deemed a “sale” under the CPRA.

Sounds awfully familiar. None of the privacy-respecting organizations I do business with need to use these weasel words to state unequivocally that they don't sell user data, and nearly all of the privacy-disrespecting ones I encounter do. Even if your intentions really were pure, you're in some very bad company here with that wording.

Back to Mozilla's 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.”

Even though I'm not a resident of California, I absolutely wholeheartedly agree with their legal definition of a sale, and it lines up pretty accurately with how I use the term in daily conversation. There's plenty of ways to "sell" something without sticking a price tag in US dollars on it -- if you're disclosing my data to a third party in exchange for something of value, you're selling my data. Full stop. In fact, I'd go a step further than California law and say that compensation in any form is irrelevant. Giving away my data for free still has the same effect of selling me out.

It would be one thing if this really was about overly-broad laws defining perfectly innocent activities as a sale. But you say yourselves that one of the reasons you needed this policy was to collect and share analytics related to the increasing number of ads that are baked into Firefox. Advertising is not something I consider a legitimate purpose, so I don't use ad-supported services. This is one of the other big things keeping me away from switching back to Firefox. I pay for my email hosting, I pay for the search engine I use, and I regularly donate to open source projects that freely give away software I find useful. I've canceled accounts/licenses/subscriptions with companies that introduced ads or other invasive changes after I started using them. I cannot stress enough how much of a deal-breaker advertisements are, in any form, regardless of any "privacy preserving technologies" employed in the process. Even with hypothetically perfect privacy, advertisements fundamentally compromise the user experience, and they have no place on any of my devices.

If I need to agree to the sale of my personal information, as these updated terms require, my privacy is by definition not being protected. I don't really care if you're using my data for AI training, ad personalization, or to bring about world peace; you shouldn't be handling my data in the first place. The only servers my browser should connect to are the ones hosting the sites I visit. If that was the case, you wouldn't need a license to process my data, because you'd never touch it. Optional services that need to connect to an external server, like AMO, should only require agreeing to their terms if I explicitly indicate that I want to use them, otherwise my browser should never connect to them. An opt-out toggle isn't enough; Mozilla should never have any way of knowing that I installed Firefox unless I agree first. Privacy needs to be the default.

It was only a couple months ago that Laura Chambers was saying:

What I love about Firefox is that it really provides users with an alternative choice of a browser that is just genuinely designed for them... We have, from its very inception and throughout, really wanted to create a browser that prioritizes people over profit, prioritizes privacy over anything else, and to have that option, the choice.

This is what I want to see. What I'm seeing right now is the opposite of this.

I completely understand that some things cost money, and that money has to come from somewhere, even if advertising in any form is off the table. As many others have noted, there's not a way for users to directly support the development of Firefox by donating. Sure, I can give money to the Mozilla Foundation, but they're not the ones developing Firefox, and after the recent shake-ups I'm not really sure what they do anymore. And with Mozilla deciding AI is their new North Star and focusing on "what comes after the browser," it sounds like most of the money coming in isn't being spent on Firefox anyway. I don't want to fund a project to bring AI cloud blockchain to Pocket, and I don't want to fund the next generation of adtech. I want to fund a serious web browser that's not based on Chromium, isn't loaded up with bloat out of the box, and is on my side in the advertising war. That means no sponsored links, no telemetry, and definitely no connecting to ads.mozilla.org ever, even once, for any reason.

In other words, shut up and take my money.

[hyperstown]

Having read another clarification I wonder does nobody at Mozilla thought about wording while writing original post? The damage that has been done is enormous, way bigger that it could be if you were more clear from the start but still, you know, "sell your data" means to me "sell your data". If some legal documents want to make this simple sentence more complicated that it is why, instead of removing it, just change the wording to for example:
Q: "Does Firefox sell your personal data?"
A: "We treat this matter seriously, Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. We do our best to protect you from advertisers that sell your data and make sure that user have full, clear control of what, for what purpose and if is being shared with Mozilla."
This would still be bad look but I guess a blog post with information that "we had to remove this because our sponsored links in could fall under word "sell" in some countries" would be enough.

I don't know how would you even turn around this situation now. The changes have not been reverted and while it's better and more transparent now it's not enough. The question about data selling MUST be brought back. I could be also nice to have CEO on some popular privacy oriented podcast like for example Brodie Robertson's podcast.

I must know that the browser I use works like this: Unless I agree otherwise with clear intention, no some trickery, the only data browser sends it's between a me and a website I visit. If the site I visit sells my data then that's a problem between me and that website. Mozilla have no right to know anything that happens on my computer. No tracking, no selling anything. If I make a Mozilla account to sync between devices then I can agree to ToS and anything can happen but that's a different story. Browser itself must be free as a freedom itself.

But what about money? I'm not financial expert but why just don't ask community. Someone here probably is. I for example would love to see just a donation button similar to what KDE is doing. I also think that it should be possible to take advantage of Google's dominant market position. There were news about Google being forced to sell Chromium but wouldn't it better to just help competition? I'm sure at least some government institutions would be willing to sign a contract to have a safe, tracking free browser that can be tailored to their needs. 

[AccountForThis]

I have been a user for 12 years across 6 machines and I don't plan on continuing use of firefox unless these terms are removed. No conversation, Thanks.

[Tabaqui]

Frankly, I welcome all this nonsense around Firefox. CEO is killing a company too slow, this should increase the pace. My point is that browser war was lost like 10 years ago, and since then Google keeps Firefox galvanized to imitate competition. If Firefox dies, FTC will finally come for Google, and something might change. Until then, the web will continue to get **bleep**tier and **bleep**tier.

[remarkable4]

Hi AshleyT,

If you have any sense at all, man up and retract this latest EULA change.  I love FireFox but will leave in a heartbeat if this sticks.  Using my data to train AI or whatever garbage you have in the pipes is absolutely unacceptable, and I hope you understand that the vast majority of your userbase uses your product EXCLUSIVELY and ONLY because of what you used to stand for.  We have no allegence to your product if you are going to bait and switch.

Do the right thing, or I guess it's gonna be LibreWolf and goodbye mozilla account.

[Sphaela]

Hope mozilla sees posts here and withdraw the ToS. It's not too late, yet.

[seva]

Business owners have a term called "planned losses." Business owners often plan to lose some customers from their actions, but then compensate for it with advertising or profits.

You and I are part of Mozilla's planned losses. Mozilla plans to lose some users, but gain a source of profit.

If the user losses are greater than Mozilla's planned percentage, Mozilla will try to change. I think if Mozilla loses a third of its users, Mozilla will start listening to us.

[GiantWod]

This is my first time writing here, and these changes are absolutely unnaceptable and i will switch to another browser if mozilla abandons it's previous security commitments and continues AI development.

[tom25519]

About AI, I think the better way is let user choose opt-in something like AI, because someone like me would like to use AI.

Also, here're some AI which could run totally locally such as Ollama, Firefox could add it for those who don't want to sent their data to third-party.

[RubenKelevra]

At this point why should we believe you?

You created a ToS which gives you a license to content you don't own and then you pulled PR bull**bleep** to explain it with lies (https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/information-about-the-new-terms-of-use-and-updated-privac...)

And deleting promises from the FAQ at the same time, that you will never sell the data you've collected.

You've lost all reputation, your back paddling won't help you here. You did know exactly what you were doing.

[RubenKelevra]

Ah cool, you even do censor**bleep** here. Great!

[seva]

— Yes, we do some things that could fall under the law on the sale of user data.
— What exactly?
— Some.
— More specifically?
— Well, it’s not what the general public understands as selling data, but we care about your privacy.
— F*****G S****T, TELL US WHAT YOU’RE DOING!!!
— No. And give us the rights to everything you watch or send through Firefox. We will use this in accordance with the Privacy Policy, which allows us to transfer your data to third parties and independently determine what third parties should do with your data.

[jefg]

Mozilla was on my short list of organizations to donate to as Firefox has been the one browser that respects our rights and I would like to contribute back. However, these changes, specifically the removal of language about never selling our data and a TOS that Firefox licenses content entered into the browser, seriously raise doubt about Mozilla's continued commitment to our rights. I cannot in good faith donate to an organization that is not on our side and am likely to switch browsers as well. If you find your conscience, which you seem to have lost, I will reconsider.

[ScottyHereCapn]

This is nothing short of alarming, particularly in a time when marginalized groups are being actively persecuted and erased by the US Govt for the crime of existence. Once that data leaves your hands, I don’t care how anonymized it is, it still leaves your control. After that, it’s no longer your legal obligation to care what happens as a result, but it is your ethical responsibility to comply with your users’ wishes in this matter. 

This could easily end with someone killed, jailed, or worse, and it would be partially on Mozilla’s hands. 

[CombeferresMoth]

It's disheartening to see Mozilla abandon all of their morals and what made their product different from other browsers, especially by couching it in opaque words that are vague and don't actually communicate anything. Guess I'm going to find a different browser. And to think I used to be proud to donate to Mozilla every year... I'll save my money for companies that don't sell their morals and our information to the highest bidder

[Erwan]

Already, the first sentence shocks me:

“Mozilla gives you certain rights and authorizations”.

Mozilla has no authority to give me rights, I'm a citizen, I have acquired and innate rights as such and no company has the right to claim to “give” me rights.

[riptofirefox]

You should've started a donate to Firefox campaign, not sell users data and destroy the reason why people loved you. RIP to Firefox.

[seva]

Mozilla is afraid to depend on the community because then it would have to report to the community. And the community wants to know all the articles Mozilla spends money on.

And the community wants Mozilla to spend money on implementing the community's wishes first. But Mozilla wants to spend money on AI and on selling user data under the name "privacy-preserving attribution."

[j0s]

Mozilla is a SJW company using Firefox to generate money, not a browser company. 

[DigglyWiggly]

I just registered to write my opinion about this. I never, ever thought that Mozilla would do something shi**bleep**ty like this. No, I won't bleep out this word, I'm mature enough to use them.

EDIT: edited as it automatically bleeps it
Insanity. It's not about money guys, they have money. Years ago I switched to LibreWolf and I regret not switching to it sooner.
One of the last companies that I trusted, you morons, you're almost the last bastion for people who want to have at least some last bits of privacy on the internet. Do you know what you're doing? Do you realize how much you harm people with your stupid decisions? Do you know realize that people count on you?
Instead of taking advantage of situation (with chrome), you're literally ruining everything. Did your CEO got some huge transfer from Google? Otherwise I can't explain what's happening. I'll be using LibreWolf for as long as it's possible and then switch to something like Ladybug when it'll be mature enough.
I used Firefox itself since the beginning of its existence. Some stupid CEO people are coming in out of nowehere and ruining everything with their decisions that devs were making for decades.
Even if you'll take it back now, the damage is done. People will NOT forget it, this isn't some stupid Reddit or similar service. This is software that meant everything for some, their window to the world, literally. How can you be so stupid (and selfish if you took some extra money from somoenoe) to ruin it last bastion of privacy when it comes to browsers. Librewolf won't be maintained if something even worse would happen to Firefox in the future. They're small group of people there, probably the same would happen with other forks. By the way I recommend watching Louis's video on Odysee:
https://odysee.com/@rossmanngroup:a/mozilla-lost-touch-with-reality-how:7

[BenCos18]

I have the same opinion also 

I'm done with using any Mozilla software now 

[seva]

In my opinion, Mozilla became independent of the community during the Google funding days and got used to spinning the community on green scaly d***k. The Firefox rejection rate, I think, surprised Mozilla, so this week they will offer us even more vague legalese.

[carbohydrates]

This is unacceptable xoming from a company like Mozilla for a web browser which does not need to collect any of our personal information. The company's response and reasoning are suspect. This shouldn't be accepted with open arms by anyone as proposed.

[muchwhales]

I realize it is pointless, but just on the off chance that someone with the authority to decide what the PR people should be communicating to the wider Mozilla community cares enough to change strategies:

Have you tried it with honesty? People won't like your decision any more, emotionally speaking, but if they also feel like you're bull**bleep**ting them (which they do, and you probably are), they're even less likely to think about the reasons for why you're making this change in a favorable light. People generally don't hear what you say, but what they think you're saying. Your goal should be to make it very difficult to misunderstand you.

Actionable steps:

1. Do not veil the information you're trying to communicate in ambiguity, or lengthy prose
2. Do not post it across several different media, blog posts, etc. - one location only. No confusion possible
3. Do not respond to people's concerns with vagueness, "empty" (low-entropy) words. Less is better
4. Structure your text so that the most critical information is also the most visible. Cut the fluff
5. Include the real reason in brief, clear wording if you can. Say that you can't disclose it otherwise (and why)
6. Don't include qualifiers that can be interpreted only with context that the readers don't have
7. Don't let marketing people write about decisions someone else has made as if they had the full context
8. Don't explain things that no one asked about, or refute arguments no one has made as a "defense"

Example (from your lastest blog posts):

> 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 you're saying:
We need money. We'll sell user data to get it. We do our best to anonymize it first. Details here: (Links)

Your text is very low in entropy. And it violates all of the hints I gave above. What readers want to know:

* What do you mean with "commercially" viable? (How much will this help? What other options did you consider? Why is this deemed an appropriate solution to the problem and why not the others?)
* Where exactly is the data collected? How? What data exactly? Why? Who are those partners?  (TL;DR needed)
* Can I turn this data collection off? Can I see what is being collected? Maybe I can agree to send some data (after reviewing) or none at all, in return for reduced a feature set, or some other compromise?
* Are there any ways for the user to inspect the process of stripping, or aggregation, as far as it involves their data?
* Why should I bother to read the lengthy, fluff-filled "Privacy Notice" if your communicators aren't able (or allowed to) communicate clearly with the users? You're asking people to trust your intentions but you aren't even capable of communicating the most basic things in a way that would make people trust you

It's great that you explain technologies like OHTTP, but you're still making the same mistake here: "How does Mozilla utilize OHTTP for your benefit?" You do not utilize OHHTP for my benefit. You utilize it to your benefit, because it benefits me the most if you didn't collect any data at all. No OHTTP needed. If you're unwilling to concede this most basic point, what hope is there that anything else you're saying shouldn't be similarly dishonest? The only way you can come back from this utter disaster is if you change course.

Try honesty. Or don't.