You can find all of these videos as written articles, plus some extra content, at https://thelibre.news/ You can the channel grow by donating to the following platforms: Paypal: https://paypal.me/ni…
You can find all of these videos as written articles, plus some extra content, at https://thelibre.news/ You can the channel grow by donating to the following platforms: Paypal: https://paypal.me/ni…
As far as I understand it, yes possibly… But if their definition is very weird to me… I now watched 2 30 minute long videos about it and still don’t understand what the problem is exactly…
What I did get though is that they majorly screwed up their PR
Basically California thinks that if you receive something of value in return for sharing data that that is considered selling data
Yes exactly. And that is entirely right and proper.
Nothing of what Mozilla should be doing meets that definition. Even if they share data with 3rd parties to process it, and even if they pay the 3rd party for that service, they’re not supposed to get something in return for providing the data. But also, providing data in such a manner does not mean they are selling it.
If they are getting something in return for providing the data, be it payment, other services or even simply a discount, then they’re doing something wrong.
Mozilla thinks they are getting something in return( I believe it’s services). I only watched the rossmann video but the Mozilla document he showed lays it out
Cool, I’ll give the video a full watch then. I normally don’t like Rossmann videos because he takes 30 min to say what he could have covered in 5-10.
But yeah, they shouldn’t be doing that. That’s selling of data. If they want to sell my data, that I manufactured by my literal blood, sweat, and tears of being alive, they should pay me for it first.
I’ve only just started looking into this, but I think it’s all fluff. The claim is that any sharing of data could be considered a sale.
This article says that an overly generalised definition of “sale” was proposed in California law, but that language was removed before the law came into effect. The CCPA webpage also frequently talks about opting out of “sale or sharing”, implying those two are different concepts. Thus Mozilla should be able to share data as needed to perform user-driven functions, while still retaining the pledge not to sell user data.
There could also be more nuance in this. Perhaps Mozilla is concerned about liability based on third party actions - if they share with a 3rd party to perform a service, but that 3rd party doesn’t follow the privacy terms, then Mozilla has an increased risk of litigation.
I haven’t started digging into the actual law itself yet, but the cynic in me wonders if organisations and their lawyers are looking to use this misunderstood news story as an excuse to weaken the privacy rights language. And the effect here is more significant to the user than the mild reduction in risk for Mozilla.
Maybe you’re right. I have not digged into it myself a lot, just watched a few videos. BUT I think the CCPA makes the selling of anonymized and not personally identifying data still count as “selling your data” even though you cannot be identified by it. As far as I understand it they are not doing anything new, but just reacting to a changing legal landscape. I might be wrong about it, but I don’t want to believe that the only FOSS browser enshittifies…
And as a friend of mine often states “don’t assume it’s malice if something can be explained by stupidity”