Browser extensions turn nearly 1 million browsers into website-scraping bots
(arstechnica.com)
from Zerush@lemmy.ml to privacy@lemmy.ml on 12 Jul 20:47
https://lemmy.ml/post/33066506
from Zerush@lemmy.ml to privacy@lemmy.ml on 12 Jul 20:47
https://lemmy.ml/post/33066506
Link to the list of extensions at the end of the article
threaded - newest
Link to spreadsheet
The list;
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/…/pubhtml
I’ll save everybody a click because it’s what we all want to know. “Dog Facts Unlimited” extension is on the list.
fuck… 😭
My disappointment is immesurable and my day is ruined.
Dark Reader is on the list :(
youtube unhook is too. very dissappointing they were both recommended by mozilla.
we really need a better way to audit these extensions… and now we really need a new dark mode extension.
That is not THE Dark Reader! Only this knock off for the edge browser is affected.
Oh wow thanks for letting me know!
Thank you so much for this!!
I used Youtube unhook in the past but before the AI craze so I’m probably good.
I know a lot of people use Dark Reader so that’s gotta hurt.
Other than that I think I’m safe.
I see Dark Reader for Edge but not Firefox. Are they the same extension?
This is from Mozilla
addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/android/…/darkreader/
They seem to all link back to the same github page.
github.com/darkreader/darkreader
Edit: not the same one as on the list
The popular Dark Reader is not affected by this.
Only this knock off for the edge browser. Source
Damn now how am I gonna live without “Change my cursor to Sims 4”?
Related turn your app into a residential proxy.
By ethical it means you bury an agreement in the terms and services.
Definitely read the original SecureAnnex article as well. The behavior of this software and the people behind it are damning.
It’s disheartening seeing screen readers on this list. That seems predatory.
.
These extensions use MellowTel-js. After this article from ArsTechnica went live, the developer responded in full detail and transparency.
If you’re a Dark Reader user (as that’s one of the most widely used extensions), definitely read MellowTel’s response on how their technology works. It made me realize the Ars article was not fully vetted.
mellowtel.com/…/responding-to-ars-technica-and-me…
Edit: Dark Reader on this list is actually a knock off version just for Edge browser only - it’s not the widely used Dark Reader that’s on multiple browser engines. See another user’s comment that replied to me.
The popular Dark Reader is not affected by this as far as I know. Only this knock off for the edge browser. Source: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/…/pubhtml
Nice, thanks for discovering that. I wasn’t aware there was a rip off version of it.
Still sounds gross. While the developer might have opted in to selling your processing power to scrape websites, I doubt the users of each extension opted in.
Response from the developer:
On User Consent:
In other words, users are opted-out by default. They can also go to that web site, and when they click the link, the page checks which extensions are installed in the browser and whether or not you opted in.
On Opt-In Enforcement:
Ars Technica article states there are “no checks to determine if a real user knows what they are approving or to determine if the developer just opts all users in on their behalf”.
In other words, the Mellow.tel developer has it set to always opt-out by default. However, developers of extensions may just opt-in the users without consent - which, I agree with you is gross. It’s possible those developers don’t explain the full implications. Now, the Mellow.tel developer is putting in remediations to ensure that the opt-in policy is enforced, and users will have more exposure to knowing whether or not this is happening. Meaning, they’re going to try to enforce default opt-out (as they stated this was always their policy), and make it easier for users to know they get opted in.
On Personally Identifiable Information and Monetisation:
The developers basically claims everything is anonymized. And the way they make money is, if you opt-in, you share “a fraction of your bandwidth” when browsing the web, fetching from a server, etc. They don’t collect or sell your user data because they aren’t advertising, and their business model is not advertising.
So my conclusion - I care about my privacy. I don’t like being opted into things without my consent. According to this developer’s response, they never did. They’re trying to come up with a model to help the web stay free. Who knows if this will be viable or not. Developers of extensions can leverage this stuff, and in the past, some of those developers may have opted users in without their consent (or without full transparency or understanding of how this was happening). Even if a user was “opted in”, it doesn’t appear to be a significant impact to privacy as they have their source code published, processing happens locally on the user’s device, and the data that gets process is not transmitted, sold, or even have any identifiers. In fact, the data they claim is quite sparse to the extent that it’s limited to bandwidth allotment, country, and simple “keep alive” checks (heartbeat). Now I don’t have any association with this company, know this developer, nor do I have any stakes at all in this. This just caught my attention and I Had to read and learn more about it, and assess whether or not it affects my privacy threat model (it doesn’t for me, simply because none of the extensions I use have this thing).
For my background - I’m a software engineer for a SaaS provider. My company processes observability telemetry, and we
I use the inbuild Dark Mode in Vivaldi (on/off with shortcut, wors even in intern pages and menus) and none of the extensions from the list, most extensions from the Store anyway are redundant in Vivaldi translation, reader mode, tabs, feeds, ad/tracker blocker…)
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/c9dc7c3c-f238-4885-b24e-403ac0ff4273.png">-
This needs to be upvoted to the top