Avoid the Hack! :donor:<p>My thoughts RE “Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox” AKA Mozilla’s latest entry in getting people riled up</p><p>Most of you know I am a <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/Firefox" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Firefox</span></a> (well, Gecko) stan, but here we go again with Mozilla’s messy pivots.</p><p>1. Please stop saying “let Firefox die cuz <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/Mozilla" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Mozilla</span></a> sucks” and “use a Firefox fork instead” in the same breath, figuratively speaking.</p><p>2. Why the point above? Because your favorite forks like <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/Librewolf" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Librewolf</span></a>, <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/Waterfox" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Waterfox</span></a>, or even <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/Tor" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Tor</span></a> rely on Firefox as upstream for <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/security" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>security</span></a> fixes, which is a big deal. Maintaining a modern browser engine with all these features - including fixing bugs and addressing CVEs - people have come to expect is exceptionally resource intensive. The modern day browser is complicated - I’d go as far as to say just as complicated (or more so) than most *nix operating systems.</p><p>3. Now that I got 1 and 2 out of the way, Mozilla pls. ToS for a browser or anything ran strictly locally is crazy. Even phone home champion Windows makes clear what is governed by Microsoft’s TOU and ToS (most things, lol).</p><p>4. In seriousness, it is a pretty communication/tone deaf move from Mozilla, imo. If I had to guess, it looks like they tried to add ToS specifically to certain “opt-in” or components of Firefox that aren’t processed on device. But the language certainly read as applying to Firefox as a whole. At risk of Monday night quarterbacking, maybe a better approach would be to link or point to a ToS for specific components if users enabled them or opted in.</p><p>5. Even the update to the initial blog post is tone deaf, imo. Mozilla should know that most users are not privy to what they doing/discussing/planning internally. Users are used to “rug pulls,” and without any context, it certainly looks that way. Additionally, given their turbulence over what to focus on outside of Firefox (especially in the last few years) to generate revenue outside of Google’s payment to be the default search provider… well, maybe they should have taken that into account.</p><p>6. I think we’re really seeing Mozilla _scrambling_ to establish groundwork in another source of revenue... which given their latest efforts is “sustainable” AI. </p><p>7. Where was the heads up? Springing a change like this, in the current hostile to privacy environment, from an organization claiming to our privacy first is not a good look. Even if the change was… misguided or poorly written of itself. Or even if 4 was the goal.</p><p><a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/privacy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>privacy</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/privacymatters" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>privacymatters</span></a></p><p><a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-terms-of-use/" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">blog.mozilla.org/en/products/f</span><span class="invisible">irefox/firefox-terms-of-use/</span></a></p>