Found this notification this morning on my pixel 6.

  • Laurel Raven@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Okay, turned it off. If a site needs my location it can ask me and I can politely tell it to fuck off unless it has a warrant.

  • umbraroze@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Wait a second. You’re expecting Google to not FUD? Ha ha ha oh wow. I mean I didn’t actually expect them to do so, but yeah.

  • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Google: “Forcing us to divest Chrome could have impacts on our ability to support Mozilla and their high executive salaries as we own the space with Chrome.”

    Also Google:

  • Psythik@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    17 hours ago

    The DDG app shows no 3rd party tracking attempts made by Firefox at all… So far…

    • Bleeping Lobster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      27 minutes ago

      Yeah. People can avoid all this nonsense by installing one simple app… Duck duck go browser.

      You don’t have to use the browser. It just sits in the background quietly blocking tracking requests from other apps.

      It’s absolutely horrifying on first use to see how egregious tracking is.

      • 0xD@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 minutes ago

        That’s not how it works. Apps cannot access the traffic of other apps, let alone decrypt it. There is no way DDG Browser does what you claim it does. They do not even claim that themselves.

  • IZZI@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Deactivate from settings Have https always on, protection against tracking on strict, data collection and daily ping on off.

    And that’s it.

  • cley_faye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    That’s a regular notification, which would happen for any application whose data policy is changed on the Play Store page. These policy are as declared by the app publisher. This would be the same for any application that didn’t check that “sharing data with third party” box earlier, then checked it later on.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      I don’t get what your comment is getting at. I don’t view this post as saying anything special or unique about the notification. I see it as a warning that Firefox is now doing this.

      • Astra@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 hours ago

        The legal definition of “sell” has changed in several major markets, and that’s (supposedly) why Firefox has recently changed their terms. The word “sell” is now ostensibly broad enough to include “give to anybody for any reason”, including if you use Firefox for any reason where you would legitimately want and need Firefox to give (“sell”) your data - for example if you use it for: literally any shopping or even just browsing store pages; any interactive (real world) maps where you may want to use your location; any searches where you want local businesses to be listed; any search engine that may want to use your location to aid in results; etc. etc. etc.

        Any legitimate exchange of data can now be construed as “selling” because of the new legal definitions, regardless of if anyone is actually selling anything.

        It’s very possible that nothing has changed - that Firefox hasn’t started selling user data, they’re just updating their terms (and this app listing) to reflect the changes in the legal definitions of “sell”.

      • cley_faye@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Have you read all the other replies? “Google mad”, “Google putting Firefox in the dirt”, “False info”, etc.

  • BetterNotBigger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    436
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    Even if this isn’t entirely true, you know Google wouldn’t pass up the opportunity to reduce Firefox market share to scare everyone back to Chrome.

    • cley_faye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 day ago

      There’s no need to reduce Firefox marketshare. Most people don’t even consider using anything else than whatever is default in their device.

      Also, it’s not a Google scare tactic or a flex. Every application on the Play Store must disclose the general outlines of their data policy, including the sharing of data. Lying with those checkbox is not a good idea but they are completely informative and put there by the publishing party, so the people responsible for publishing Firefox on mobile just updated these, and this is what is shown when an app publisher say their app is sharing data with third parties.

      tl;dr: it’s very likely that not a single soul at Google even looked at this, as this is just the regular behavior of the Play Store with apps that changes their data policy or indicate sharing user data with third parties.

        • cley_faye@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          21 hours ago

          No idea, I’m not that obsessed with it. But do note that “The developers of these apps provided info about their data sharing practices to an app store. They may update it over time.” and “Data sharing practices may vary based on your app version, use, region, and age.”

          The recent changes to Firefox terms of use (well, their introduction really) was supposedly meant to appease some regional lawmakers. Maybe it is a regional thing. Maybe they changed it again. Maybe it’s, as often with store page update, rolled out progressively to people (in either direction, whether it’s adding or removing these terms).

          The point is, that’s neither a “Google” operation to put Firefox in a bad light, nor a Mozilla operation to… do whatever it is they’re doing these days. It’s just a regular message. Which, reading a lot of the replies here, is something that have to be said.

      • pycorax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        89
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s not the point they’re trying to make I think. It’s more of an attack on perfection. Like “the alternative is not perfect either so why not just stay with Chrome”. It’s not a very strong argument in general but it might be enough to keep people from switching.

        • JayGray91@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 day ago

          the alternative is not perfect either so why not just stay

          It does work for a lot of people. Seeing they need to change and adapt if they do change, and it seemingly seems to be as bad as what they’re using now, why change and face headaches and hassle.

        • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          exactly, when confronted with cognitive dissonance people look for any shitty excuse to avoid changing their minds.

      • ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        It integrates into the Google ecosystem well, and if that has value to a person it may just be enough to bring them back to chrome.

    • Engywook@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      There isn’t to much to reduce. I don’t think Google is scared or afraid by Firefox, like at all.

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      Firefox? You mean the company they give several hundred million dollars/year? Yeah I don’t think they’re too worried. They need some number of users on Firefox to prevent anti-trust issues. Which they’re on the brink of right now.

    • morrowind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Lol if Google really wanted to kill FF they would just stop paying them half a billion a year.

    • Xanza@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      So you’re advocating that Google shouldn’t broadcast that firefox is broadcasting your current location? Even though they do this for every other app available on Android, you’re saying they shouldn’t do this for firefox?

      Why?

      • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        This notice is effectively added by the Firefox developers when they select the ability to enable location services and also tick a box thay they collect data.

      • devedeset@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        They want to scare people to stay on Chrome now that they discontinued support of uBlock (not that it was ever supported on Chrome for Android anyway)

        • Xanza@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          So they do this for all apps. Every single app that is in the Android ecosystem. But in your mind they’re specifically targeting firefox with this to make people “scared” huh?

          Must be nice to live in denial.

      • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        terrible choice of link. There was a stack of reporting from various tech-news sites and blogs; but you’ve given as the nazi site.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        The story I heard was that by of California’s definition of selling data, doing anything with user data that could benefit the company was considered selling data. So they updated their FAQ to be in line with that definition. But I could be wrong, if someone could point me to a good article I’d appreciate it.

          • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Thanks! Sounds like limiting risk from the California bill is a plausible reason, but it isn’t confirmed.

            Legal Definitions of “Selling Data” Under the CCPA Are Broad: As noted above, the CCPA’s definition encompasses many data-sharing practices that may not align with common understanding of “selling data”.[16] Even if Mozilla was not directly selling user data, its search partnerships, telemetry data sharing, & sponsored content could have been interpreted as data sales if Mozilla received any financial benefit from them, all of which were actions that Mozilla has already been transparent & upfront about.

            Mozilla’s Search Engine Deals Could Be Considered Data Sales: As mentioned earlier, these partnerships could legally qualify as data sales under the CCPA definition, despite being an existing part of Mozilla’s business model that consumers are already aware of.[1]

            Sponsored Content in Firefox’s New Tab Page Involves Data Exchange: Mozilla dReferencesisplays sponsored content and ads on the Firefox New Tab page, which may involve user interaction data being shared with advertisers.[11] Even if the data is anonymized, the CCPA considers certain types of aggregated data as personal information if it can be linked back to users.[16]

            • bearboiblake@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              2 days ago

              It sounds like a bullshit excuse, to me.

              If they wanted to cover their ass, they could have changed their ToS any number of different ways than what they went with.

              Let’s not be naïve. All corporations are the enemy, including Mozilla.

              • devedeset@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                To be fair they are a company with bills to pay and they have to shield themselves from being fined or sued. At this point I assume almost everything has been backdoored to hell and I’d rather use the product from the company with better overall terms and principles.

                • bearboiblake@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  i’m a person with bills to pay, but if i paid those bills by endangering people, i’d be a bad person.

                  corporations exist to protect people from the financial and legal repercussions of their business activity.

                  they should not exist, and so, I will celebrate if Mozilla goes into bankruptcy.

                  we do not need them. control of firefox should be in the hands of a not-for-profit group, not a company.

        • solrize@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          You’re saying “exploiting” user data might have been more precise than “selling”. Either way I don’t want them doing it.