AI Summary:
Overview:
- Mozilla is updating its new Terms of Use for Firefox due to criticism over unclear language about user data.
- Original terms seemed to give Mozilla broad ownership of user data, causing concern.
- Updated terms emphasize limited scope of data interaction, stating Mozilla only needs rights necessary to operate Firefox.
- Mozilla acknowledges confusion and aims to clarify their intent to make Firefox work without owning user content.
- Company explains they don’t make blanket claims of “never selling data” due to evolving legal definitions and obligations.
- Mozilla collects and shares some data with partners to keep Firefox commercially viable, but ensures data is anonymized or shared in aggregate.
Do you actively consent to everything that happens around you? When you pick up an apple, do you consent to the pesticides used on them? Truth is, everyday of our lives we passively consent to a myriad of things to other people that know better than we do.
In this case no matter how many ways firefox is telling users that they have no reason to be worried, they keep clutching their pitchforks in the worry that firefox has suddenly turned into google (who btw have to abide by privacy laws just the same). There are no informed here, only pitchfork wielders.
THAT’S the example you choose?
Absolutely stunning. You actually unironically do not understand what consent is. You need to take an ethics class.
I’ll give you the really basic version:
#1: People are allowed to say no to you for any reason or no reason at all. It doesn’t matter if you think their reasons are invalid or misinformed. No means no.
#2: A lack of a “no” does not mean “yes”. If a person cannot say “no” to what you are doing because they have no idea you’re doing it in the first place then that, in some ways, is even worse than disregarding a “no”. At least in that case they know something has been done to them.
That, by the way, is what the “informed” in “informed consent” means. It doesn’t mean “a person needs to know what they’re talking about in order for their ‘no’ to be valid”, like you seem to think it means.
Doctors used to routinely retain tissue samples for experimentation without informing their patients they were doing this. The reasoning went that this didn’t harm the patient at all, the origin of the tissue was anonymized, the patient wouldn’t understand why tissue samples were needed anyway, and it might save lives. That’s a much better justification than trying to develop a web browser, and yet today that practice is widely considered to be deplorable, almost akin to rape.