Clarity is needed here. The California language that sparked all this is qualified with “about FakeSpot’s products and services”. Meaning it could simply be third-party services that they send their own emails through.
After reading their privacy policy, nothing jumps out at me that contradicts this.
To be clear, I’m not a fan of the extension’s collection practices, but the down votes could be because this may be unwarranted fear.
Unwarranted fear or healthy skepticism? This is the perfect time to “just ask questions.” Firefox is selling itself as a privacy respecting platform and therefore should be held to a higher standard than the garbage that is chrome. If it can pass the test it will be proven again and earn more trust which should result in more users, if it fails then it deserves to be criticised and lose users. Point is if you are selling yourself as privacy respecting you are selling yourself by default as ethical.
100% agree. I wasn’t trying to say the collection practice isn’t bad, just that the other linked threads may be taking things a bit farther than what the policy actually says.
Why would anybody assume Fakespot wouldn’t sell user data when they have already proven they would: to Mozilla?
Mozilla has had ample time to fix the privacy issues in the Fakespot policy, but they haven’t. Instead, they’ve already started injecting FakeSpot into beta editions of Firefox.
Sure, but this doesn’t mean much. If they didn’t transfer ownership, FakeSpot could do whatever they wanted with that data. By forcing the transfer, Mozilla can choose to keep it private.
Clarity is needed here. The California language that sparked all this is qualified with “about FakeSpot’s products and services”. Meaning it could simply be third-party services that they send their own emails through.
After reading their privacy policy, nothing jumps out at me that contradicts this.
To be clear, I’m not a fan of the extension’s collection practices, but the down votes could be because this may be unwarranted fear.
Unwarranted fear or healthy skepticism? This is the perfect time to “just ask questions.” Firefox is selling itself as a privacy respecting platform and therefore should be held to a higher standard than the garbage that is chrome. If it can pass the test it will be proven again and earn more trust which should result in more users, if it fails then it deserves to be criticised and lose users. Point is if you are selling yourself as privacy respecting you are selling yourself by default as ethical.
True. According to Mozilla’s own words:
100% agree. I wasn’t trying to say the collection practice isn’t bad, just that the other linked threads may be taking things a bit farther than what the policy actually says.
Ok. It’s things like this where the detail matters so thank you
I love the wholesome and fact-focused discussions here on Lemmy. Good show, Mr. SuckMyWang. 🤝
Why would anybody assume Fakespot wouldn’t sell user data when they have already proven they would: to Mozilla?
Mozilla has had ample time to fix the privacy issues in the Fakespot policy, but they haven’t. Instead, they’ve already started injecting FakeSpot into beta editions of Firefox.
Because they are now owned by Mozilla. As stated above, I, like others, don’t like the practice, and I hope Mozilla adjusts acordingly.
Right before Mozilla purchased it, Fakespot’s terms were updated to explicitly allow the transfer of user data to Mozilla.
You understand why they changed those terms, right? Because Mozilla isn’t reselling the data and the data can’t go elsewhere.
[citation needed]
Sure, but this doesn’t mean much. If they didn’t transfer ownership, FakeSpot could do whatever they wanted with that data. By forcing the transfer, Mozilla can choose to keep it private.
And yet, the privacy policy was never amended to prevent sales of data, either before the acquisition or after it.
Take off the rose tinted glasses, because when you wear them, red flags just look like flags.