I think you're both right here. Mozilla has been hunting for money (to keep the lights on), and in doing so diversified into many things. However, when it has come to light that some of these things are grey or even black towards their morals, the right thing to do is to stop doing it. Instead of keeping their actions in line with their morals, they're trying to change their morals to maintain their income.
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.
I've only just started looking into this, but I think it's all fluff. The claim is that any sharing of data could be considered a sale.
This article says that an overly generalised definition of "sale" was proposed in California law, but that language was removed before the law came into effect. The CCPA webpage also frequently talks about opting out of "sale or sharing", implying those two are different concepts. Thus Mozilla should be able to share data as needed to perform user-driven functions, while still retaining the pledge not to sell user data.
There could also be more nuance in this. Perhaps Mozilla is concerned about liability based on third party actions - if they share with a 3rd party to perform a service, but that 3rd party doesn't follow the privacy terms, then Mozilla has an increased risk of litigation.
I haven't started digging into the actual law itself yet, but the cynic in me wonders if organisations and their lawyers are looking to use this misunderstood news story as an excuse to weaken the privacy rights language. And the effect here is more significant to the user than the mild reduction in risk for Mozilla.
I don't think that's the case. This article says that an overly generalised definition of "sale" was proposed in California law, but that language was removed before the law came into effect.
Mozilla is not selling your data, yet, but they have removed their pledge to never sell data.
It's an intentional gradual change, and they're playing a sleight of hand trick getting you to talk about whether they actually are selling data right now rather than the canary dying.
Yes, these days you might have like 20 devices plugged in, but they're all DC and most only draw about 10W each. Also, they're not all drawing power at the same time.
We have a lot more stuff plugged in than the era when most houses were built.
While this is true, most of the devices we use today are DC devices and much lower power. Your standard USB device is maybe 5V and 2A, so only 10W.
Yes I'd just found that! That's insane.
At the end though the Controversy section implies it was probably exaggerated. Even as a show vessel it would have been grossly impractical with the technology at the time. Still, it's so fantastical, I love it!
The name “forty” refers not to the number of oars, but to the number of rowers on each vertical “column” of oars that propelled it
What the hell, 40 per column, just how many rowers did it have all together?!
Edit: Wow, 4000! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessarakonteres However the controversy section is well worth a read hah.
They've already instructed US cybersecurity agencies to stop reporting on Russian threats.
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).