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...
  • BentiGorlich@gehirneimer.deOP
    0·
    2 months ago

    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:

    by the business to another business or a third party for monetary or other valuable consideration

    Context:

    “… selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by the business to another business or a third party for monetary or other valuable consideration.”

    What is this “or other valuable consideration”? Could be anything which makes it very very very very broad

    • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      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.

        • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          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.

        • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          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).