• fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because they are now owned by Mozilla. As stated above, I, like others, don’t like the practice, and I hope Mozilla adjusts acordingly.

            • steakmeout@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              You understand why they changed those terms, right? Because Mozilla isn’t reselling the data and the data can’t go elsewhere.

            • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.