A Comment on Mozilla's Policy Changes
The Recent Policy Changes
As you may have read in Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox, there has been significant confusion and commentary surrounding Mozilla’s recent policy updates. The reaction from the tech community has been mixed, with many expressing concerns about potential privacy implications.
I think it’s important to highlight a clarification Mozilla later added to their announcement:
UPDATE: We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses, so we want to clear that up. We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox, for example. It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice.
A Communication Disconnect
This situation reveals a recurring issue in how Mozilla communicates with its user base. I believe this represents a fundamental disconnect in communication strategy. Internally at Mozilla, I’m certain there were extensive discussions, agreements, disagreements, and careful consideration about how to phrase and present these changes. The team likely developed a clear understanding of the what, where, and why behind these policy updates.
However, when it came time to present this information to users, Mozilla seems to have forgotten that we—the external community—were not privy to those internal discussions. Critical context, nuance, and rationale that informed their decision-making process were missing from the initial announcement. What may have seemed perfectly clear to those inside Mozilla appeared ambiguous and concerning to those of us on the outside.
Waterfox’s Approach to Privacy Policy Stability
For Waterfox, the policy has remained consistent and straightforward, with minimal changes over time.
I’ve done my best to be transparent about if and when Waterfox communicates with remote servers, giving users control over these interactions whenever possible. This philosophy reflects my belief that a browser should be predictable in its behavior and respectful of user choices regarding privacy.
Forks: Different Approaches to User Privacy
The ecosystem includes several forks that take different approaches to user privacy and interaction. Some make more aggressive privacy choices by default, while others like Waterfox aim to balance privacy with functionality in a transparent way. These forks serve an important role in the browser ecosystem by providing options for users with specific requirements.
But -critically- what’s often overlooked in discussions about browser privacy is the importance of formal governance structures and accountability mechanisms. While Firefox and forks like Waterfox operate within established legal and organisational frameworks, there are numerous browser projects without any formal governance documents, legal entities, or accountability structures.
Open source software is fundamentally about freedom—the freedom to modify, distribute, and use software as one sees fit. However, when it comes to something as security-critical as a web browser—software that mediates our most sensitive online interactions—the existence of a responsible organisation with clear policies becomes a crucial differentiator.
Browsers without formal governance may offer appealing features or privacy claims, but users have little recourse if those promises are broken. There’s no entity to hold accountable, no legal framework within which to address grievances, and often no transparency about decision-making processes.
Balancing Freedom with Responsibility
This is what I think makes Waterfox fundamentally different from many alternatives. The very fact that we maintain clear policies, respond to user feedback, and operate within legal frameworks creates an accountability that many browser projects simply don’t have.
As the browser landscape continues to evolve, I think that having a clearly defined governance structure and transparent policies isn’t just good practice—it’s an essential component of user trust. While open source gives developers the freedom to fork code and create new projects at will, users deserve to know who is responsible for the software they rely on daily and how decisions about their privacy are made.
The existence of formal policies, even imperfect ones, represents a commitment to users that their interests matter.