I would love that detractors explain what data is being sold, exactly. Because it's the same data that you have willingly given them by using their _services_. The only change with the product is "for the purpose of doing as you request", which is the definition of an User Agent.
Sounds like the blog post shows that they are explicitly selling user data. Specifically data relating to the ads they show in the browser. They claim it's carefully anonymised and aggregated, but they are selling it nonetheless. The blog post is a nonsequitar with the claims in the updated 'TOS', which make no sense because they don't need a license for an executable on your PC to process and send data to the website's your visiting in line with what's expected of a web browser, only a license if they are also sending it to themselves or on behalf of themselves, which is not "what you intend" if you visit a web page or just open up a new tab.
> because they don't need a license for an executable on your PC to process and send data to the website's your visiting in line with what's expected of a web browser
You actually do. It's implied that by using the software you give it to the software to act to your agent, but you actually do have it. In court you would have to establish this behavior using context. Mozilla avoids all of that by making it explicit.
> only a license if they are also sending it to themselves or on behalf of themselves
>In court you would have to establish this behavior using context.
Under what law? As far as I know neither copyright nor the various privacy laws care about what an executable on the user's machine is doing, as far as the liability of the company goes. They only care about what the company sees.
>Which again, the license still doesn't allow.
Which is why it doesn't make sense, especially when their privacy policy does spell out that they are selling data collected from the browser (not very much, but there certainly is some)
