"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.
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.