|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

StarDict sends X11 clipboard to remote servers

By Daroc Alden
August 11, 2025

StarDict is a GPLv3-licensed cross-platform dictionary application. It includes dictionaries for a number of languages, and has a rich plugin ecosystem. It also has a glaring security problem: while running on X11, using Debian's default configuration, it will send a user's text selections over unencrypted HTTP to two remote servers.

On August 4, Vincent Lefevre reported the problem to the oss-security mailing list and to Debian's bug tracker. He identified it while testing his setup before the upcoming Debian 13 ("trixie") release. Installing StarDict will also install the stardict-plugin package by default, because the former recommends the latter. The plugins package contains a set of commonly used StarDict plugins, including a plugin for YouDao, a Chinese search engine that supplies Chinese-to-English translations. The plugin also contacts a second online Chinese dictionary, dict.cn.

This would normally not be much cause for concern; of course a dictionary program will include code to talk to dictionary-providing web sites. But one of StarDict's features, which is also enabled by default, is its "scan" functionality: it will watch the user's text selections (i.e. text highlighted with the mouse), and automatically provide translations as a pop-up. Taken together, the two features result in any selected text being sent to both servers. This only occurs while StarDict is open, but the application is designed to be left open in the background in case the user needs a quick reference while reading.

StarDict on Wayland doesn't have this problem, because Wayland prevents applications from being able to capture text from other applications by default. That does mean that it breaks StarDict's scan feature, though.

Xiao Sheng Wen, the Debian package maintainer for StarDict, didn't see a problem with the behavior, noting that if a user doesn't want to use the scan functionality or the YouDao plugin, both can be disabled. Lefevre wasn't satisfied with that, saying:

But this is not the whole point. Features with privacy concerns should never be enabled by default (unless the feature is the only purpose of the package, and such a package would never be installed automatically — and even in such a case, there should be a big warning first).

In response, Xiao pointed out that the package description can be read by any user who chooses to install the software, and it does mention the scan feature. That said, I noted during my investigation that the description of stardict-plugin did not mention that the YouDao plugin uses an online service instead of an offline dictionary. Xiao suggested splitting the networked dictionary plugins into a separate package, but was "not sure whether it's very necessary to do so".

It is worth noting that the scan feature, while obviously a problem in this context, is one of the reasons that a user might choose to use StarDict over an alternative. Reading foreign-language media is often easier when words can be sought in a dictionary with as little fuss as possible. From that perspective, it makes sense that Xiao might not view the feature as problematic.

Any user who did read the description of the package, and who knew what the YouDao plugin would do, might nevertheless expect the resulting communication to at least be encrypted. But the plugin actually reaches out to its backend servers — dict.youdao.com and dict.cn — over unsecured HTTP. So, not only are these servers sent any text the user selects, but anyone who can view traffic anywhere along its path can see the same thing.

This is not even the first time that StarDict has sent user selections to the internet; the same kind of problem was reported by Pavel Machek in 2009 and again by "niekt0" in 2015. The 2009 bug was solved by patching the application's default configuration to disable networked dictionaries. That appears to have worked for a time, but the YouDao plugin, which was added in 2016, does not respect the configuration option. The 2015 problem was not fixed until August 6 of this year (although the package was removed from Debian for unrelated reasons for a few months from 2020 to 2021). That fix just removed the stardict_dictdotcn.so plugin, which also sent translation requests to dict.cn and was later subsumed by the YouDao plugin, from the package. In fairness to Xiao, he was not the StarDict maintainer in 2015 — that was Andrew Lee — but Xiao knew about the 2015 bug since at least 2021, even if he didn't consider it a priority.

According to Debian's package popularity contest statistics, only 178 people have StarDict installed, down from around a thousand between 2009 and 2015. That obviously doesn't capture people who have configured their Debian system not to participate in the statistics collection, but it does suggest there were a number of people who might have been broadcasting their text selections to the internet for several years. Given that people copy and paste passwords from their password managers, or select the text of sensitive emails and documents during the course of editing, that should be a significant cause for concern.

Debian is a large distribution, containing tens of thousands of packages. Moreover, because of its commitment to stability, a decent fraction of these are older software with delayed or sporadic updates. The reality is that Linus's law ("given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow") only holds up if people are looking — and if, once they have looked, and have reported things, the people who have taken up maintenance of the software actually agree that there is a problem.

Part of the justification for moving to Wayland over X11 is to make security vulnerabilities relating to one application spying on another more difficult to introduce. That obviously has to be balanced against the cost of adapting to a new way of doing things, but it's not hard to see why so many people are eager to make Wayland work. Maybe, in the future, StarDict's default behavior would have had little to no impact. Or maybe StarDict would have started asking for special permissions to let it work on Wayland, and users would have accepted those defaults the same way they currently do.

Either way, the existence of serious security problems that can be found, diagnosed, reported, and still remain unfixed is cause for concern. Linux has long enjoyed a reputation for security; maintaining that reputation depends on the developers, maintainers, and users of open-source software caring enough to fix security problems when they arise.



to post comments

Beauty is all around

Posted Aug 11, 2025 17:28 UTC (Mon) by jadedctrl (subscriber, #178426) [Link]

I laughed out loud — I love this so much, it is truly insane this was default behavior. Not even HTTPS! This world really is beautiful.

memory

Posted Aug 11, 2025 17:37 UTC (Mon) by shironeko (subscriber, #159952) [Link] (1 responses)

I remember using something like this back in the day on my XP machine. Nowadays it is truly wild to think that something like this would be a thing, at least make a tooltip and let the user confirm before sending stuff to the internet.

memory

Posted Aug 12, 2025 10:29 UTC (Tue) by aragilar (subscriber, #122569) [Link]

Was it wordnet? I recall something like that existing, not sure if it had a similar issue to StarDict.

Seriously?

Posted Aug 11, 2025 18:05 UTC (Mon) by wtarreau (subscriber, #51152) [Link] (8 responses)

IMHO the problem is not even that it talks over clear HTTP, it's that it's sending those data in the first place! Who can imagine that your selected text which can include parts of e-mails, server configs, passwords etc would be sent to a cryptic remote site ? I'd say it's a great thing this was done in clear, as it allowed to instantly notice what was happening. CnC servers usually to that over encrypted channels precisely so that you don't know ;-)

Seriously?

Posted Aug 11, 2025 18:31 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (5 responses)

Exactly. What if you're at work dealing with "top secret IP". Call me cynical about that claptrap, but if it's sending chunks of confidential documents "in the clear" to chinese servers, that's a classic case of industrial espionage!

Cheers,
Wol

Seriously?

Posted Aug 12, 2025 7:33 UTC (Tue) by chris_se (subscriber, #99706) [Link] (3 responses)

> that's a classic case of industrial espionage!

Nah, without any corroborating evidence, Hanlon's Razor applies. The feature itself will be considered useful by some people and my guess is that the authors don't care that much about privacy to begin with, but not because of malice, but more because of a different perspective.

Doesn't make the impact of this issue any better, but I also don't think this kind of rhetoric is helpful at all.

Seriously?

Posted Aug 12, 2025 8:37 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (2 responses)

> Doesn't make the impact of this issue any better, but I also don't think this kind of rhetoric is helpful at all.

Considering that the impact COULD be severe economic damage (remember, the US is unusual, in the rest of the world mere disclosure of economic secrets destroys any value), I don't think I'm being over the top.

If I (as an outsider) notice that document, I can use it to block any patent application, for example. Okay, espionage implies intent, but the end result is near as dammit identical.

Cheers,
Wol

Seriously?

Posted Aug 12, 2025 11:26 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (1 responses)

> (remember, the US is unusual, in the rest of the world mere disclosure of economic secrets destroys any value)

If you're referring to the "first to file" policy used in the rest of the world…the US joined that party in 2013[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_...

Seriously?

Posted Aug 12, 2025 14:40 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

No the rest of the world does NOT (and mostly never has, to the best of my knowledge) use "first to file".

The rest of the world has used "filing must be the first publication" - if you accidentally let slip your filing documents today, and file tomorrow, that slip counts as prior art and will invalidate your application. It's happened! ("Publication" meaning "making available to the public", not necessarily our normal meaning of the word of "printing copies and selling them". Which includes accidentally losing a copy on the bus ...)

As far as RoW is concerned, "first to file" is just an accidental byproduct of the first publication rule - if my application pre-dates yours, any conflict is resolved in my favour not because I filed before you, but because I published before you. That's why there's discussion every now and then about a "journal of inventions" - the whole point of which is to prevent any future patent applications on those ideas because of "first to publish".

The problem is that if patent examiners mostly read only patent applications, they may well grant invalid patents because they are unaware of prior publications.

Cheers,
Wol

Seriously?

Posted Aug 17, 2025 14:29 UTC (Sun) by rapiz (guest, #153529) [Link]

non English speakers who use translation service daily, yeah it sounds like very high value target to steal some US IP.

Not saying we should do this in 2025. But at the time the software was written, it was a pretty much standard feature for this kind of software.

Seriously?

Posted Aug 12, 2025 7:02 UTC (Tue) by danieldk (subscriber, #27876) [Link] (1 responses)

I was most surprised by the laissez-faire attitude of the Debian maintainer. As the article states (for worse or better) Linux is known for a security and privacy stance. Most Debian users I know highly value privacy and then the maintainer of this package goes "sends all clipboard data unencrypted to some server without really telling the user? <shrug>".

I am glad that this was discovered (again).

Seriously?

Posted Aug 29, 2025 14:05 UTC (Fri) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]

That ’s because written Chinese is hard even for native Chinese speakers, shoehorning it into computers and smartphones involves writing simplified pidgin that software digests and regurgitates as clean logographs. So having a magic helper that slurps what you type and returns clean text is not an exception it’s the way Chinese use IT all day long.

Chinese logographs are the penultimate technical debt no one knows how to get rid of.

Upstream is pretty surreal.

Posted Aug 11, 2025 20:26 UTC (Mon) by Hobart (subscriber, #59974) [Link] (2 responses)

From the StarDict page, I followed a link (via Wayback Machine) to the no longer active homepage of the author.
It's... unusual. https://web.archive.org/web/20230704145152/http://www.huz...

Upstream is pretty surreal.

Posted Aug 12, 2025 0:43 UTC (Tue) by shironeko (subscriber, #159952) [Link] (1 responses)

Did some digging, the author started behaving quite weird around 2008, converted to Buddhism, and went missing in 2011 and was later found. After that his condition got worse and worse, and around 2013-14 his communications online is pretty much fully schizophrenic. Not sure what happened to the site, from archive.org he's still active in 2023.

Upstream is pretty surreal.

Posted Aug 12, 2025 0:54 UTC (Tue) by shironeko (subscriber, #159952) [Link]

Just noticed today is the day Terry died, RIP.

Privacy issues in Linux distros

Posted Aug 12, 2025 4:14 UTC (Tue) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]

There are numerous privacy issues in distros, some known, most probably unknown, some examples from Debian:

https://wiki.debian.org/PrivacyIssues

As an example, Evolution/Balsa/Geary have privacy issues with HTML email:

https://www.emailprivacytester.com/badClients

Luckily there are things like opensnitch that can block some of these issues:

https://github.com/evilsocket/opensnitch

Distro privacy policies?

Posted Aug 12, 2025 4:18 UTC (Tue) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]

I wonder how many distros have privacy policies for the packages they distribute, and privacy support for fixing those issues like they would fix security issues.

Security policy and secure-by-default

Posted Aug 12, 2025 5:07 UTC (Tue) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link]

The article's linked Debian BTS is worth a read to see very differing viewpoints of security, and particularly around the security policy of secure-by-default (which has been a typical policy in Unix-like operating systems since the events of 1988. I can't see a mention of in the Debian Policy Manual, the main guidance for packagers; easily could have missed it though).

I wrote my own stardict comatible library and app

Posted Aug 12, 2025 8:17 UTC (Tue) by metan (subscriber, #74107) [Link]

I never liked the stardict apps so I wrote a simple library[1] to do lookups on the stardict formatted dictionaries that includes simple command line tool for looking up translations. And there is also very simple graphical app build on the top of the library [2]. If anyone is interested packages could be grabbed from OBS [3].

[1] https://github.com/gfxprim/libstardict
[2] https://github.com/gfxprim/gpdict
[3] http://gfxprim.ucw.cz/packages.html

GDPR violation

Posted Aug 12, 2025 10:54 UTC (Tue) by helge.bahmann (subscriber, #56804) [Link] (18 responses)

Considering that the sensitivity of clipboard data is rather non-specific (FWIW it might contain medical data), the feature would have likely required _explicit_ informed consent (even if maintainer considers installing the package as "consent", that would merely be implicit). Such things can therefore likely not legally be distributed at all in EU without somehow showing a consent screen.
I presume it is an honest error by the maintainer, but when trying to justify external data processing it is important to also look at it from this POV in addition to moral obligations.

GDPR violation

Posted Aug 12, 2025 14:28 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> (even if maintainer considers installing the package as "consent", that would merely be implicit)

And such consent must be given by the data SUBJECT, not the data PROCESSOR, so in this particular example, consent is probably not even possible ...

Cheers,
Wol

GDPR violation

Posted Aug 13, 2025 1:53 UTC (Wed) by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648) [Link] (16 responses)

The software author doesn't live in the EU, so I'm quite certain that he gives zero f*s about its laws, as do I. And, if the EU or Debian's lawyers decide to make a stink about the GPDR, they can always just host the package in the US. There's precedent for that: Debian used to host cryptography packages in Europe when US laws were the dumb ones. Times sure change, don't they?

Separately, you are putting forth an absurd interpretation of the GPDR. He's not collecting data on anyone; he just wrote a program that queries a website he neither owns nor controls. Think about this: does the GPDR require Firefox to get your explicit consent before letting you search Google? No, because that would be insane? Okay, then neither does this thing. It's just Firefox for your clipboard.

GDPR violation

Posted Aug 13, 2025 3:20 UTC (Wed) by helge.bahmann (subscriber, #56804) [Link] (9 responses)

It's a bit hypothetical as I do not think anyone is going after Debian, but legally there is a problem that _could_ also fall back to hosting sites and/or ftpmasters that _are_ in EU. The interpretation of GDPR is also not absurd at all but is its exact meaning -- "whoever determines the means of data processing" (which might be the implementor as it might be the packager / distributor _selecting_ it to be shipped to users) is liable for ensuring compliance. It does not matter if the data is sent to somebody else (without a contractual relationship of Debian towards the actual _processor_ of data it just gets worse), responsibility is to the controller not processor.
My comment was mostly to the discussion about "safe by default" -- that is not only the right thing to do, but "privacy by default" is the factual legal requirement, I find that arguing against this is really strange.

GDPR violation

Posted Aug 13, 2025 3:35 UTC (Wed) by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648) [Link] (8 responses)

K, so you think web browsers are illegal in the EU and you think that's not an insane result. Good for you.

GDPR violation

Posted Aug 13, 2025 7:16 UTC (Wed) by helge.bahmann (subscriber, #56804) [Link] (7 responses)

Web browsers are not illegal, you consent with what you enter into sending wherever you send it. You are free to avoid navigating to specific web pages. Preset search engines are an issue only insofar if you are not informed which it is. Exchange of information with external entities is the "purpose of a browser, recognizable to any lay person" and legal interpretation follows.
The distinction is that a clipboard is designed for exchange of on information between apps, and you are not consenting to anything anytime you may even make an (sometimes accidental) selection in an application, and it virtually impossible to operate a GUI without ever making use of a clipboard. If you ask any lay person whether the purpose of a clipboard is to send all information to a remote server, you will get a response to that, and legal interpretation naturally follows.
The law is there to protect privacy, and it is constructed very sensibly: "privacy by default, if in doubt ask user for consent, don't just force your opinion on privacy preferences on others". It is not helpful to try to contort the law in absurd ways in order to argue that you cannot be bothered to be bound by it. Privacy laws really are one of open sources best friends as everyone else keeps trampling on them.

GDPR violation

Posted Aug 13, 2025 12:56 UTC (Wed) by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648) [Link] (6 responses)

> Exchange of information with external entities is the "purpose of a browser, recognizable to any lay person" and legal interpretation follows.

No, a browser can also browse the local filesystem and internal networks -- and you overestimate laypersons. (And you're not quoting anything, including especially https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679 so why the quotes?)

Also, sorry, but I don't have a lot of free time right now, so I'm just going to guess at both parts of how this would play out and let that be it for me (see below). However, it would be interesting to know what part of the actual statute or administrative regulations you're basing your opinions on. I'm not going to argue with you about your interpretation of whatever because I don't have time, but I will check back in case you want to quote something, because I would be interested to know whether the GPDR really is insane enough to outlaw certain kinds of open source software or whether you're basing your claims on a misinterpretation of the law, or on a gut feeling rather than the law.

---

You: "By installing and opening the browser, the user consents to using it to transfer data on the network."
Me: "By installing and opening a program whose documented behavior is transfer the clipboard data over the network, ditto."
You: "But it's not obvious the program would be doing that."
Me: "It's provably not obvious to laypersons that using private browsing doesn't actually change the way browsers transfer data over the network."
You: something about common sense and network access being necessary to functionality
Me: something about offline mode not being the default and network access being necessary for non-degraded functionality of the clipboard program

(we go in circles 3-5 times)

corbet: something about we need to shut up or take it outside

GDPR violation

Posted Aug 13, 2025 14:19 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (4 responses)

> (we go in circles 3-5 times)

Me: But the user does NOT HAVE LAWFUL POWER to consent to sharing this particular data. They are NOT the data subject, who is the only person who can.

This is the exact same problem we have with TPMs, and DRMs (the bad version) where some people seem incapable of understanding that the USER and the OWNER do not have the same rights, and are not necessarily one and the same.

If you are not the data subject, you cannot consent to share someone else's data, and to do this in the EU is a serious breach of the GDPR. "but I didn't realise this program was sending everything to China" is likely to get *extremely* short shrift from the regulators - and the fines can be *extremely* painful.

Cheers,
Wol

GDPR violation

Posted Aug 13, 2025 14:30 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (3 responses)

> But the user does NOT HAVE LAWFUL POWER to consent to sharing this particular data. They are NOT the data subject, who is the only person who can.

Huh?

"this particular data" is the user's. Why don't they have the lawful power to consent to sharing their own data?

GDPR violation

Posted Aug 13, 2025 14:45 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (2 responses)

How do you know that? How do you know they are not copying someone else's PII? How do you know they are not copying the contents of a confidential document, which they have authority to USE but not SHARE?

The whole premise of this sub-thread (if I have it right) is that by typing/copying data into Firefox's search bar, the user is consenting to it being sent out for processing elsewhere. NOWHERE has there been any discussion about whether the user actually has the power to consent, or whether the data is theirs, leading to the classic ASS-U-ME scenario.

Which is the exact same problem we have with StarDict, that started all this ...

Cheers,
Wol

GDPR violation

Posted Aug 13, 2025 15:25 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (1 responses)

> The whole premise of this sub-thread (if I have it right) is that by typing/copying data into Firefox's search bar, the user is consenting to it being sent out for processing elsewhere. NOWHERE has there been any discussion about whether the user actually has the power to consent, or whether the data is theirs, leading to the classic ASS-U-ME scenario.

While your point about how the "user" and "subject" are not necessarily the same person is valid, you keep using "user" interchangeably to refer to both. Please be consistent!

Meanwhile, any potential liability for leaking third-party PII falls entirely on the [employer of the] meatbag sitting in the chair. Assuming they even had the right to "process" that PII to begin with, they are responsible for safeguarding that information, which extents to their choice of tools and properly configuring/maintaining them.

But in a more general sense, the "problem" you describe is as old as humanity itself; There is no way to prevent two people from gossiping about a third party. There is only punishment after the fact, Sometimes. Long after any damage has been done.

GDPR violation

Posted Aug 13, 2025 16:55 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> While your point about how the "user" and "subject" are not necessarily the same person is valid, you keep using "user" interchangeably to refer to both. Please be consistent!

And where exactly have *I* done that? Of course, if the user and the data subject are the same person, the terms *are* interchangeable. But if they're *not* the same person, then the user is the pbkac, and the location of the data subject is completely unknown. And the *user* "hat" does not have power to consent. Ever.

> Meanwhile, any potential liability for leaking third-party PII falls entirely on the [employer of the] meatbag sitting in the chair. Assuming they even had the right to "process" that PII to begin with, they are responsible for safeguarding that information, which extents to their choice of tools and properly configuring/maintaining them.

Notice in my example I did explicitly say I had the right to *process* the data.

> But in a more general sense, the "problem" you describe is as old as humanity itself; There is no way to prevent two people from gossiping about a third party. There is only punishment after the fact, Sometimes. Long after any damage has been done.

I have to agree. There are (and have been for a long time) laws on libel, slander, and eavesdropping. But Linux should not include programs whose default (and undeclared) activity falls blatantly within the eavesdropping category. It's basically the same as all the screams about Microsoft backing up all your activity so that any random 3rd-party who gains access to that data (that you quite possibly didn't even realise existed) can retrospectively view everything you did!

This basically is the point. Firefox is EXPECTED to share the stuff you type in. If the user is not the data subject, then there is potential for a serious GDPR breach (I expect it's like trespass - if you have good grounds for expecting the data subject to agree, then the risk is minimal. If you expect (or know) the data subject will refuse, then DON'T DO IT!) If the user isn't aware of the law, the response will be "ignorance is no excuse".

The problem with StarDict, is the user has no expectation that the data will be shared, so the blame could easily end up landing on the entity responsible for installing it. And that could end up being the distro itself.

Cheers,
Wol

GDPR violation

Posted Aug 13, 2025 15:15 UTC (Wed) by helge.bahmann (subscriber, #56804) [Link]

For legal purposes it matters whether it is obvious to the layperson, not whether it is obvious to the developer who wrote it. (You could argue that in reality it only matters whether it is obvious to the judge). I predict you will have a hard time finding a judge to rule that a web browser transfering data externally isnon-obvious, I therefore predict that usage of a browser therefore will be ruled to be implied consent. I predict that conversely that you will have difficulty finding a judge to rule that clipboard contents are routinely to be expected to be sent anywhere, so copying anything to the clipboard is not going to be ruled to be consent. It really does not matter how much you wave "it's documented", if you do something that average user does not expect, it is _your_ obligation to inform and obtain consent, it is _not_ the users obligation to meticulously read documentation. It is quite obviously quite "impolite" to me to tell a user "your privacy was violated because you didn't actively read the fineprint in the documentation and you would need to because the developer just did not want to bother to actively inform you", but this impoliteness also has legal teeth.
If you look at how GDPR cases are regularly won against companies trying to "sneak" underhanded data processing into their products, this is really exactly it.

GDPR violation

Posted Aug 13, 2025 7:28 UTC (Wed) by chris_se (subscriber, #99706) [Link] (1 responses)

> does the GPDR require Firefox to get your explicit consent before letting you search Google? No, because that would be insane?

Well, at least Firefox gets your implied consent when searching Google, because there's the expectation that entering a search query in Firefox will contact an external service.

But just starting a program in the background causing all text I select with my mouse to be sent over the network without any encryption in that program's default (!) setting is something extremely far from any expectation I would have.

I'm not saying this feature isn't useful, and that the program can't include it - but it shouldn't be the default. It should either be disabled by default and the user should have to enable it explicitly in the settings (with a message text in the setting indicating clearly what the consequences are), or this choice should be shown during the first program startup, with an equally explicit explanation.

I agree though that the GPDR talk is a bit of a red herring. But I think that the program in its current form can easily run afoul of other laws. For example, in my country of Germany there's § 202a of our criminal code, which may or may not apply to this, depending on how a court interprets the law (I can see this going both ways).

GDPR violation

Posted Aug 13, 2025 10:28 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> I agree though that the GPDR talk is a bit of a red herring.

GDPR is *very* relevant.

Let's say I am (lawfully) processing your PII on my system. This thing sends YOUR data to China, without MY knowledge, or your consent. Cue all hell breaking loose when the Data Commissioner is informed ...

Cheers,
Wol

GDPR violation

Posted Aug 13, 2025 8:55 UTC (Wed) by excors (subscriber, #95769) [Link] (1 responses)

> does the GPDR require Firefox to get your explicit consent before letting you search Google?

Consent is not the only lawful basis for data processing under the GDPR - in particular it can be justified as "legitimate interest", when that processing is necessary for those interests and is balanced against the user's own interests. (And it must be explicitly documented in the privacy notice, so users can decide whether they agree with that balance before using your product.)

Sending search terms to Google seems like a clear example of legitimate interest, because web search is valuable for both the browser developer and the user, and transmitting the search terms is necessary (you can't do offline web search), and the privacy harm is minimised by using encrypted communication to a company that has its own GDPR-compliant privacy policy, etc.

Firefox's privacy notice (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/) lists its legal basis for search data as "Legitimate interest in providing and improving search functionality, as well as a more personalized search experience and sponsored results", and also "Consent when you choose to opt into an enhanced search experience and share additional personal data" (I assume this is https://blog.mozilla.org/data/2025/05/07/data-and-firefox..., which sends more data to Mozilla and partners and is opt-in).

GDPR violation

Posted Aug 13, 2025 17:11 UTC (Wed) by helge.bahmann (subscriber, #56804) [Link]

There are elements of many things in processing of search terms by firefox (legitimate interest in selection of default search backend backed by explicit information and opt-out instructions, performance of contract for transmission of data itself, consent in determining search terms). That is in the case of Firefox on extraditing data to a foreign entity that is at least DPF-certified (however much that is worth, though...) Last time I checked there was no data protection equivalence agreement in place that would apply to the target in question so there is little choice besides consent in the case at hand.

GDPR violation

Posted Aug 13, 2025 10:34 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> Think about this: does the GPDR require Firefox to get your explicit consent before letting you search Google? No, because that would be insane?

But the GDPR DOES require me to get YOUR consent if I want to put *YOUR* PII into Firefox's search bar.

You are all missing the point that this thing is sharing stuff that the user has no legal right to share (because it's *someone else's* PII, or trade secrets, or yada yada). Without the user's knowledge, or consent, which the user is legally bound to refuse.

Cheers,
Wol

GDPR violation

Posted Aug 13, 2025 12:46 UTC (Wed) by rschroev (subscriber, #4164) [Link]

> He's not collecting data on anyone; he just wrote a program that queries a website he neither owns nor controls.

He's sending data to a third party, that's even worse. Data which is almost certain to contain sensitive / confidential / personally identifiable information at some point.


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
This article may be redistributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 license
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds