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…
Maybe I glanced over it too much, but as far as I know the problem is this exact line which is still in the law:
Context:
What is this “or other valuable consideration”? Could be anything which makes it very very very very broad
Firstly, “consideration” in this context means payment. It’s standard contract law terminology. What that statement means is that Mozilla can’t give data to a 3rd party in exchange for a payment (money or otherwise) from the 3rd party.
Mozilla should still be able to “share” data with no value exchange, or even pay a 3rd party to process the data in some way. In the latter case, Mozilla would be giving the data freely, on top of a transaction where Mozilla provides consideration in exchange for the 3rd party’s service.
The only way, as I see it, that “valuable considerstion” towards Mozilla would occur is if the 3rd party were to give a discount on their service in exchange for the right to exploit the data. Or if Mozilla otherwise straight up sold the data.
Consideration does not have to just mean monetary payment
I don’t think I said that? Consideration is any kind of payment, money or otherwise. The terminology of the law also says this, “monetary or other value consideration”. A discount is not really giving money to someone, but it may be valuable consideration (if it is part of a broader deal - a shop shelf discount usually isn’t).
It’s the first sentence on your post
Your statement implies there are other forms of payment than monetary.
My statement did not state monetary payments only, just payment generally. I clarified 2 sentences later with “in exchange for a payment (money or otherwise)”. The point I’m making is that “consideration” is a payment in return for something else, and that payment can either be money or any other valuable item or service.
As I have no legal clue this is my source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bTquKjzos&t=151s
Ahh good ol Rossmann lol. I love him but I hate watching his videos, he goes far too ranty and repeats himself, it becomes hard to extract the real points.
Case in point, the video at your timestamp starts with an After-Before-Whatever rant before getting into any of the meat XD
I think everyone is really missing the points here. It isn’t just bad PR, it’s so bad that it can only be intentional. They didn’t just claim rights and put them back, they removed their pledges to not sell data. The conversation isn’t focused on the net result, the loss of the pledge, it’s diluted elsewhere.
Maybe they’re selling data to governments under law? I’m sure they already have terminology that permits them to do things legally required of them (so they don’t need you to give them further rights), and the general process for the tech industry is to protest against such government interference up until the point a contract is negotiated where the government pays for access. In fact, I think this is generally what’s happened with other businesses when their canary statements have gone away, as was revealed in the Snowden leaks.
I think it holds entertainment value, but if you want to watch the video for informational purposes, yeah I agree :D
I stated my opinion about the statement here:
So like expand on it instead of deleting it…
Maybe it is kinda the same as when Google decided to get rid of the “don’t be evil” statement…
That was exactly what I was thinking of. Although I think there were even better examples with proper canary statements going away in line with the business’ alleged joining of the PRISM program.