When software has to "phone home" to deliver the functionality you requested, then two things happen: One, a number of privacy regulations kick in, and they need to get you to agree to send your data to them. Two, they now get to move your data out of your control. I mean, you trust them today, so here's hoping they don't ever get hacked or hire someone untrustworthy?
It's sad when even to use the basic features of a web browser, you need to agree to send them your data. It's not fundamentally necessary to send your data to Mozilla or their partners in order to load and render a website. It's a dark pattern to obtain consent to collect your data "when it's necessary", and then rewrite your app to make it necessary.
Yes you do.
From Microsoft's Services Agreement [1]:
> To the extent necessary to provide the Services to you and others, to protect you and the Services, and to improve Microsoft products and services, you grant to Microsoft a worldwide and royalty-free intellectual property license to use Your Content, for example, to make copies of, retain, transmit, reformat, display, and distribute via communication tools Your Content on the Services.
That's broader than what Mozilla is asking for.
Word versions that predate the share button probably wouldn't need the license grant. But since MS likes to limit the number of different licenses it was probably still in there to cover SharePoint and OneDrive
The Microsoft Services Agreement applies to your use of their online services, like OneDrive and SharePoint, as you say, and there's an explicit consent in the app and a giant off switch there. They employ dark patterns to push you strongly to use their online services, but it's still optional.
It should be readily obvious that choosing to use online sharing or storage features or submit reviews require the data you enter to be sent, shared, or stored thusly...
"Hey, here are my car keys - can you move my car to a different parking space?"
"I cannot - I do not have a royalty-free non-exclusive worldwide perpetual license to access and operate your vehicle."
I realize lawyers have been wildly successful in making a parody of our societies and legal systems, but permission is implied in clicking the "share" button, it does not require obtuse and overreaching legal language to grant.
So based on this request: "Hey, here are my car keys - can you move my car to a different parking space?" The parking attendant's gonna drive it like they do in Ferris Bueller's Day Off[1]. Oh - you didn't want that? Well you should have been more specific.
If you are comfortable leaving things ambiguous, that's fine. That's how you get situations where Twitter and Meta are using all of their user content as input for LLMs. Obviously you can stop using those products if you want, but when you get angry about (or mock) companies that are making it illegal for them to do the same thing you are part of the problem.
I don't "like" legal jargon, but I understand that the legal system is one way we can limit the power of corporations, and throwing up your hands and claiming we don't need it feels immature to me. We live in hell but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve hell. We certainly shouldn't lie & distort what rights Mozilla has under this agreement as the title of this submission does.
But that license agreement does the opposite - it gives Microsoft more general permissions. You tell them to host & share your content by clicking "share", but then they also give themselves all sorts of other permissions.
Like what in there is "more" than you need to share an item? I certainly see how they could add more text restricting the nature of the license to be in line with user intent - but that feels like it goes against that it's "implied." Which is it? Is it obvious what rights Microsoft needs to share content or should they go into more excruciating legal detail?
> I think when they say they have the right to "make copies of, retain.." - that basically describes sharing your content?
It does. But that is not the rights they granted themselves - they start that list with "for example". The actual rights they grant themselves are:
> To the extent necessary to provide the Services to you and others, to protect you and the Services, and to improve Microsoft products and services
That is all MS products and services. In other words, they grant themselves exactly the right to train AI on your content that you had used as an example of the consequences of vagueness.
To move beyond this specific license - when an entity wants to do with your input only what you implicitly tell it to do (send a search query to Google, host & share a document, etc.), they already have all the permissions via implication. It is when they want to do more, that they need a license.
> when an entity wants to do with your input only what you implicitly tell it to do (send a search query to Google, host & share a document, etc.), they already have all the permissions via implication.
I guess I don't think this is true. If they have a nice broad license that covers what you ask of them that broad license might also allow "improving their services" (you would have to read it). The alternative is what Mozilla does here - putting limits on their use. Legal frameworks aren't...physics? They only matter if you go to court - but once you get to court the thing that matters is the text of the legal agreement. I guess...if you wanted to sue Google over what they did with your search query, the lawsuit would hinge on what their ToS said and it either says they can do what they did or it doesn't?
Don't feel bad - it was the purpose of those examples to deceive.
My CS4, as far as I recall, has never asked for it either.
It seems a fairly recent thing that companies want to harvest your personal information.
> Performance or Benchmark Testing. You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of either of the Windows 95 Software Components to any third party without Microsoft’s prior written approval.
Wasn't that an Oracle sin? I guess Microsoft didn't want to miss out on the dickery.
The weird thing is that a) I don't think this license grant covers any of that, since publishing a review doesn't improve my experience, it improves other's experiences, and b) Mozilla Websites like addons.mozilla.org have a completely different TOS [1], with a completely different license grant.
I have no idea what this license grant is supposed to accomplish, or what it would even allow that requires a license grant in the first place
Imagine if on first startup Firefox offers you to show website recommendations. Maybe a prechecked checkbox. If you don't say no, they send anything you type in the address bar to some third party, that third party throws that in a recommendation system and spits out websites you may want to visit, which Firefox then shows in the new-tab page. This license grant would cover that. They would be using a license on content I input (all my keystrokes in the address bar) to help me experience online content (recommendations for new content) as I indicate (they asked). In principle recommending me websites based on all images I upload with Firefox would also be covered, though that's a bit far fetched.
Of course in the EU you'd probably have pretty strict consent requirements because of the GDPR, same with other jurisdictions with strong privacy protections. But in places with weak privacy protections the grant in question should cover all bases to pull something like this
I don't believe that dissection is a good way to understand the implications of this clause.
>When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.
Rather than go over this word-by-word, please tell me: what limits exactly does this place on Mozilla? What rights does it give to the user? One way to express such a limit is by construction, that is, construct hypothetical acts A, B, and C that would be allowed under these terms, but actions D, E, and F would not be allowed (and be a cause for action by a user). I assert that the first set includes literally anything you can imagine (modulo a sophists ability to morph "help you" into anything they want), and the second set is empty.
To steel-man this concept, let us say that Mozilla wants to store and use your password to your bank to check your balance regularly. I assert that this action is allowed by there terms. Why? First, you used Firefox and therefore enabled the clause. Second, your authentication details are entered through Firefox, and this constitutes "input" or "upload", to which they assert ownership (which I will use as shorthand for a "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license"). One thing they could do with your financial data is show it to you (least harm). Another thing is to aggregate it with other's data (medium harm). Yet another application would be to pool it into a database to be sold to the highest bidder (maximum harm). In the latter case, you could make the argument that such a move "helps you" by giving Mozilla a reliable revenue stream that helps fund continued development of the browser.
Needless to say, I am appalled and feel bad for all the many people I've told about Firefox over the years, described it as a bastion of fairness and privacy in an all too often sinister world. And now that they've assert these extraordinary rights over user data, I feel ashamed of my advocacy. I daresay that even if they rescind this incredible overreach, I will not come back. My trust has been broken and cannot be easily (if ever) repaired.
"the data stays on your device and is not sent to Mozilla’s servers unless it says otherwise in this Notice."
... "When you perform a search in Firefox, your search query, device data and location data will be processed by your default search engine"
... "Mozilla derives the high level category [...] from keywords in that query [...] privacy preserving technologies such that Mozilla only learns that someone, somewhere, performed a search relating to a particular category, without knowing who."
... Review Checked, AI Chatbots, advertising on new tab page, etc.
So yea Firefox does so much they pretty much have to use your data, but it's not a blank cheque to do what they want.
[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/
Not so say I like some of those things - advertising and categorizing searches. But still, it's finite and explicit.
I believe your confusion stems from a misreading of "as you indicate with your use of Firefox". You're reading it like "by using Firefox, you indicate".
Contemplate the difference between
"The car is allowed to move as you indicate with the controls."
versus
"By using the controls, you indicate the car is allowed to move."
The former explicitly only allows the car to realize your intent, whereas the latter gives the car license to do whatever it pleases.
Yes. I reworked the example a few times. I think the third rewrite made it pretty clear.
> It certainly ignores the core point of my comment, which is to construct hypothetical actions by Mozilla that would NOT be permitted by the clause.
The hypothetical action you gave is not permitted, because the user would not have indicated they wanted Mozilla to do that. Firefox/Mozilla is only allowed to use your data as indicated by you.
However there's more that also precludes such use as in your example:
> license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact
Mozilla phoning home your bank account details is not helping you do that in any way, so it is not covered. The next part, that we seem to disagree on, only further narrows that down to actual user intent.
You're not indicating that they can have a license to do anything, you're specifically giving them a "license [..] to help you [..] as you indicate".
Something like, a popup over the execute button on the search bar disclosing the specific processing instruction you are providing by pressing that button, and by whom.
Or, when you use a vertical scroll bar, a confirmation that no processing is occurring outside your local machine.
These things would satisfy some more detail-minded people, but ultimately would provide no significant value to either Mozilla or the marginal user, so it's really no mystery why Firefox does not do this.
What was the purpose of mentioning it now? And why write in such an ambiguous way that it could be interpreted otherwise? And that still doesn’t give me confidence about what they will do at a later time. I don’t like it at all, these are used car dealership tactics.
Mozilla is bound to only use the content to help the use navigate, experience and interact with online content as the user has indicated.
> One thing they could do with your financial data is show it to you (least harm).
Yes - this is what the user indicated.
> Another thing is to aggregate it with other's data (medium harm).
And the user has not indicated that this would be a permitted use of the data - thereby revoking the license of the first clause. If the data is used outside of the final clause of the license, that is unlicensed use of data. This would be a material breach of the contract by the corporation. This could open them up to massive legal penalties.
<p>Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too.</p>
{% else %}
<p>Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too.</p>
{% endif %}
You mean wording like this?
""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. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love."
Which is contained in both the link you provided, and on their official Privacy FAQ: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/
I'm really confused how you can possibly claim that they removed the wording when it's right there for you.
> We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP)
So they are sharing your data with partners, commercially. but only in "anonymized" form so its OK?
> We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data.
and instead there's vague weaseling
> doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data“)
I'm not like most people, I am a bit stupid and have a very low threshold for what selling my data is.
> Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love.
You can either have 2.5% of users who know why they are using your browser and are willing to make a donation or you can have nothing while we use a fork with your telemetry ripped out.
This definition of helping me (a user} navigate could be interpreted in many ways, from the obvious all the way through to sending Mozilla my data so they can "improve Firefox" and therefore help me through giving them my information. This signals intent against my interest, regardless of whether that actually is there intent. The 'help' in particular is extremely suspicious and ambiguous
This commit says that they can know sell your data as well, which does look beyond using them for improving their software
I am not an expert in this field, and I think the meaning is ambiguous. It could be interpreted as you say; it could be interpreted otherwise.
Mozilla's current intent isn't relevant to what they do later or its legality or enforceablility.
So basically they can track everything I upload or type on my keyboard while in Firefox?
You're replying to a comment where I've broken the sentence down into smaller parts. It's the best I can do.
I can do all of those things just fine without Mozilla also experiencing my online content.
Other uses of that data are not licensed. For example, using that data in an unrelated request they send to themselves, not indicated by clicking reply, is not licensed.
No, but if they had one and it was phrased like this one, the license itself would be limited to these activities. If you want something to decry from Mozilla's terms, pay attention to this part:
> Every once in a while, Mozilla may decide to update these Terms. We will post the updated Terms online. We will take your continued use of Firefox as acceptance of such changes. We will post an effective date at the top of this page to make it clear when we made our most recent update.
Note that they even tell you that you can check for yourself to see if/when they tell you that you've agreed to give them a new license. That is much closer to allowing them to do anything they want than what the current license allows.
Regardless of any of that, the thing to have in mind is that this is an explicit message from Mozilla that you are agreeing to these terms by using firefox and continuing to agree to the terms by using firefox. Not to say this is ideal; just that it's as good a time as any to move on from Mozilla and firefox, especially if one is unhappy with these terms. I say this as someone who has left behind Mozilla and firefox after using it for over a decade. I will continue to be on the look out for and supportive of alternatives. So far librewolf (https://librewolf.net/) has been an easy pick-up as it's primarily just firefox with telemetry turned off.
These terms are common on webapps because, well, they're webapps. You send your data to the webapp and they store it on their own servers.
Web apps, operated by individuals or organisations, are very different to local apps which are operated by you. Just because the Firefox app is running on your device doesn't mean that Mozilla is operating it.
By granting Mozilla the right to access and use your data, you're agreeing to give them data which they never had previously - instead of just sending the POST to xyz.com you're now sending it to Mozilla as well who can do whatever they like with it, sell it to ad networks, whatever.
(Yes, they need your express permission to do that, because copyright law is really fucking dumb and makes absolutely no sense if you're approaching it from engineer-brain.)
Precisely. That's why it's not covered by the license.
It says it is.
If you want to claim otherwise, show where it says that and elaborate. This style of "argument" leads nowhere. You're stringing together vague statements and claims, leaving it to the imagination of the reader to tie them into the matter at hand. Maybe you want to do your own dissection of the sentence we are arguing about to make your reading of it clear.
However,
> Lawyers get paid good money to word them very precisely.
This is true, but not in the way you are presenting. The precision is often to provide unilateral freedom under the guise of protection. They will "lawyer" you. "As indicated by you" is a grossly broad phrase. An indication is not an express, enthusiastic consent. (FWIW browsers have a lot of lessons to learn from sexual misconduct training, but I digress).
Importantly, you are making an implicit assumption that actually is not protected by the statement. And that is when the intention was shared. If you accept the terms of a Mozilla service elsewhere that indicate you are amenable to, for instance, being served ads in exchange for using the browser a certain way --it can now be argued that the data can be exfiltrated.
So, there are two points of failure with your assessment.
1. "Indicated by you" is subjective and Mozilla can solidly argue implicit consent or action 2. The indication need not be contained to the same operation which which the information in question is being sent.
I'd like to second this. I've attempted to have lawyers write contracts that adequately protect and limit both sides of an agreement. First drafts always look to completely balance the scales in favor of the person paying them.
Writing a well-balanced contract requires a lot of work that Mozilla should be doing, but charitably doesn't know they need to do or pessimistically is intentionally not doing. It's hard to read this situation as not either incompetence or a change in Mozilla's priorities.
> "As indicated by you" is a grossly broad phrase. An indication is not an express, enthusiastic consent.
I agree that by itself "indicate" could be interpreted very broadly, however in context it is decidedly less so: "to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox". So in order to be licensed use, it has to serve to help the user "navigate, experience, and interact" in the way the user indicated.
Also see the steering wheel example here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200940
> If you accept the terms of a Mozilla service elsewhere that indicate you are amenable to, for instance, being served ads in exchange for using the browser a certain way --it can now be argued that the data can be exfiltrated.
You're right. It absolutely could be argued. As long as they obtain consent/a communication of intent somewhere - for instance by you leaving a "yes, serve me ads" checkbox ticked somewhere - they arguably could now have license to use your data for that.
However the point is that something on top of your agreement to the TOS is necessary to make that happen. Just agreeing to the TOS and browsing the web normally doesn't give Mozilla license to do much at all.
If I could make a change to the sentence, I would modify it to include "license [..] to the extent necessary to [..]":
> When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to the extent necessary to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.
I don't think that change is strictly... necessary, but it makes it very clear that Mozilla doesn't have license to do all sorts of other unrelated things with your data beyond what is absolutely necessary to realize the user's intent.
Here, let me repeat some of the comments you ignored:
ndiddy 4 hours ago | unvote | parent | prev | next [–]
Given that Mozilla updated their site a couple days ago to remove any wording along the lines of "Firefox will never sell your data to advertisers" when a flag associated with the new Firefox terms of use is enabled (see https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b...), I'm not so sure that this is a CYA about standard web browser usage.
theturtletalks 4 hours ago | unvote | root | parent | next [–]
> {% if switch('firefox-tou') %}
<p>Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too.</p>
{% else %}
<p>Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too.</p>
{% endif %}
Why do you care about my stance?
I'm just here trying to correct a misreading of a specific instance of "lawyerspeak" and am not interested in joining some ideological battle where you believe me on the opposing side. It's not my kind of past time. I'm more interested in making sure I fully understand a matter, often by bouncing my interpretations off other people. I could not care less about joining some online brawl and making my side seem right by any means necessary.
What you're bringing up has no bearing on this conversation - it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence people were confused about at all.
That's why I was ignoring these kinds of replies. I just don't care for it.
Are you a lawyer?
You've been doing more than "bouncing my interpretations of other people". You've been confidently telling people that your interpretation is correct and that concerns about this granting Firefox legal cover to do much more with user data are baseless.
> navigate, experience, and interact
You claims these words are restrictive, but they really aren't.
Did you write an reddit post about air condidtioners? Does that indicate an interest in buying an air conditioner? Can mozilla now sell/share that data with advertisers so you can experience ads related to air-conditioners?
Those three words provide a huge amount of wiggle room.
If you truly want to "fully understand a matter", it hells to look at the entire context.
Would that fact at all change what the sentence in their TOS means? Nope.
Whether or not the sentence needs to be there has no bearing on its meaning.
What changed? Why do they need it now?!
This is why broad "boilerplate" agreements are unacceptable especially from a self proclaimed savior of online privacy such as Mozilla.
https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b...
The change removing "Does Firefox sell your personal data? Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That’s a promise." makes it pretty clear that the intention in the changes is NOT just covering their bums for using your input to provide the webpage you wanted. They are positioning to sell your personal data.
That promise to never have, never will sell your personal data was highly valued by many Firefox users and Mozilla must be pretty desperate to break it.Particularly given online privacy is suddenly crucial for many out-groups in the US - and pretty much everyone outside the US. The biggest marketing opportunity for years just landed in Mozilla's lap, and they spilled it.
There is no reasonable way to read this as an attempt to sell your data. This quote is also reiterated in the linked Privacy FAQ on their official site: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/
> We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).
So they share data with partners, which helps to make Firefox commercially viable, meaning those partners pay them for that data. Or in other words, Mozilla sells user data. Even when anonymized or aggregated, it's still selling data.
> "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."
I read that definition, and think to myself... "transferring" ... yeah, a web browser definitely has to transfer data ... "to a third party" ... yeah, web browsers have to send that data to web servers owned by other people. Silly California! That's not selling!
Oh wait, there's more. ... "in exchange for monetary or other valuable consideration". ... oh. Yeah. I would call that selling too. How is that a broad definition? Rather than broad, I would call it comprehensive.
So Mozilla has had to stop saying they are not selling your data because... they are actually selling your data. Or else they have plans to do so.
Long answer: Unless the button says "phone home my information to Mozilla", this license wouldn't cover that. This license only covers whatever is necessary to make the button itself work - whatever is necessary to realize the user's intent.
That seems like a pretty reasonable justification to me
Honestly I'm surprised that a research technician is more interested in this style of "argument" rather than figuring out the meaning of a (very precisely worded) sentence to for its own sake.
Firefox is dead. What do I use now?
"(BTW there are opt-outs linked from each chapter/category of data, like sponsored content in new tab experience etc. that should lead you through settings to disable such telemetry. Nothing has changed about that, and you can always find it in the privacy center. The changeset you're looking at here is just to remove things that are unfortunately not that simple, and need explaining in the full legal documents instead.)"
Assuming that everything is HTTPS, what are they actually licencing? My encrypted data?
This is some Mozilla legally idiot that went WAY to far in a "cover our ass" legal document and nobody stopped to think about the potential damage this would to the Mozilla and Firefox reputation, which already isn't doing so well. They didn't even stop to think if MAYBE this needed some clarification, to avoid unwarranted speculations. It's getting increasingly clear that the people running Mozilla has absolutely no idea what they are doing, nor do they have any respect for the project they've are in charge of. At this point I wouldn't be surprise to learn that the Mozilla CEO uses Edge.
I disagree. I definitely editorialized it to make it attention-grabbing and point out the essence, because I wanted to raise awareness and spur discussion.
But they do own it in the digital sense (i.e. "piracy is not stealing" sense). You get to keep your own copy, but they also get a copy and they own that copy.
> help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content
These terms are vague enough to allow pretty much everything. Google would argue that tracking your information so they target ads is "helping you navigate" ("you see, sponsored links are more relevant!"). As well as "lets train an AI model that helps users experience the internet!"
I completely agree. Saw the HN title, clicked through to the page and saw nothing relevant to the title. I've flagged the topic now.
No difference to me. Goodbye Firefox.
By the way, what alternatives are there for Thunderbird?
And, honestly, at this point this feels seriously misguided. However many bad things I can say about Mozilla, what really has changed on 25 Feb? Nothing much, really. The removed claim that they don't sell user data (linked in another comment) might be actually the bigger news here. But that also is much less important than what data they can actually gather (compared to brave/chromium/ladybird/whatever). If you can still disable tracking as before, well, ok.
Obviously, I don't think it's ideal in any case, and I'd rather like to have the same relationships with my browser as I have with Vim. But that is besides the point, the point being that news aren't really news (at least, definitely not the same news as 90% of posters in the topic are perceiving/discussing).
Edit: merging into https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185909.
Earlier thread (in this case) was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200065, which had that title.
Let's dissect what it actually says, and we do it backwards, because given the discussion around this subject it seems like people space out or have their mind clouded by outrage before they get to the end of the sentence:
> help you [do things] as you indicate with your use of Firefox.
So this already only covers things that you indicate you want to do with your use of Firefox. Meaning that if you hit some button, Mozilla now has a license to process the data they need to make that button work and nothing more. That means unless you give them additional permission somewhere, they can't, for example, also store and process that information to train some AI model or whatever. All they're allowed to use it for is making whatever you interacted with work. Seems pretty reasonable.
> to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content
This further narrows the scope to websites and such you interact with (online content). It also says that license only covers "helping" you with these things. The part we looked at previously narrows this to your intent.
> you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license
So just a license. No transfer of ownership is happening.
> When you upload or input information through Firefox
Note that this says "through". They're clearly only trying to cover their butt as an intermediary by obtaining a license to process your information to act as such an intermediary. Explicitly nothing more.
Putting it back together we get:
> When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.
Important part in cursive.
So broadly what is the license for?
> license [..] to help you [..] as you indicate