@_marco_@masto.pt @ponda @thelinuxEXP@mastodon.social We also wanted to additionally clarify that we won't be adopting the Firefox Terms of Use for Thunderbird, either on desktop or on mobile.
Thought this was interesting and worth knowing about
$6M, but if you look at the California law that spurred this change, the Privacy Policy that hasn’t changed since July 2024, and the revised ToS, this looks mostly like a really, really, really stupid communication error.
It’s one of those cases where legally, “sell” includes things that most people wouldn’t consider a sale in normal parlance, but Mozilla has to comply with the overbroad legal definition; meanwhile, they don’t appear to be fundamentally changing anything about how they’re operating.
ETA: I’m still moving to LibreWolf (and maybe Ladybird later on). I’m not a lawyer, and expecting people like me to parse legal definitions of commonly understood words is just asinine.
The thing is, I don’t want Mozilla to be “really this shouldn’t be called selling” my info either. This was my call to jump ship to a fork that doesn’t give any data to Mozilla in the first place by adopting a downstream fork.
I probably already wasn’t giving Mozilla any data to “not sell” in the first place, since I’ve got telemetry disabled and used about:config to strip out all of their non-browsing functions. But why trust a “probably” that also inevitably needs more attention when they roll in some AI assistant nonsense I don’t want (or whatever) when I can just find a fork of their FOSS product that’s run by people that don’t want my data in the first place?
To quote this wiki that did a very good job of breaking down this clusterfuck:
The CCPA defines “selling data” as:
“Sell,” “selling,” “sale,” or “sold,” means 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 the business to a third party for monetary or other valuable consideration.
The sticking point is that last “other valuable consideration.” The question that people should be asking is: “valuable to whom and in what capacity?” Value does not need to be for financial gain; knowledge is valuable to a contractor building a building, for example.
But I recommend reading that wiki breakdown or just watch this video. It’s a mess that can’t be untangled in a simple Lemmy comment.
Who is the moron at Mozilla that thought it would be a good idea to sell user information, and how much does he make a year?
$6M, but if you look at the California law that spurred this change, the Privacy Policy that hasn’t changed since July 2024, and the revised ToS, this looks mostly like a really, really, really stupid communication error.
It’s one of those cases where legally, “sell” includes things that most people wouldn’t consider a sale in normal parlance, but Mozilla has to comply with the overbroad legal definition; meanwhile, they don’t appear to be fundamentally changing anything about how they’re operating.
ETA: I’m still moving to LibreWolf (and maybe Ladybird later on). I’m not a lawyer, and expecting people like me to parse legal definitions of commonly understood words is just asinine.
The thing is, I don’t want Mozilla to be “really this shouldn’t be called selling” my info either. This was my call to jump ship to a fork that doesn’t give any data to Mozilla in the first place by adopting a downstream fork.
I probably already wasn’t giving Mozilla any data to “not sell” in the first place, since I’ve got telemetry disabled and used about:config to strip out all of their non-browsing functions. But why trust a “probably” that also inevitably needs more attention when they roll in some AI assistant nonsense I don’t want (or whatever) when I can just find a fork of their FOSS product that’s run by people that don’t want my data in the first place?
That’s kinda my feeling, too. It doesn’t appear to be any worse than a year ago, but if you were already not impressed, this is not an improvement.
Allowing access for valuable consideration is pretty cut and dry. What is the legislation defining beyond that?
To quote this wiki that did a very good job of breaking down this clusterfuck:
The sticking point is that last “other valuable consideration.” The question that people should be asking is: “valuable to whom and in what capacity?” Value does not need to be for financial gain; knowledge is valuable to a contractor building a building, for example.
But I recommend reading that wiki breakdown or just watch this video. It’s a mess that can’t be untangled in a simple Lemmy comment.