Wasn't the whole coercion Google did around Manifest V3 in the name of security?
How is it possible to have extensions this egregiously malicious in the new system?
8M users' AI conversations sold for profit by "privacy" extensions
151–160 of 261 posts
Re: 8M users' AI conversations sold for profit by "privacy" extensions
#152The footer animation of koi.ai is so cool.
Re: 8M users' AI conversations sold for profit by "privacy" extensions
#153Do we know for how much that type of content sells? Not that I'm interested in entering the market, but the economics of that kind of thing are always fascinating. How much are buyers willing to pay for AI conversations? I would expect the value to be pretty low
Re: 8M users' AI conversations sold for profit by "privacy" extensions
#154I don't understand why so many people are using / trusting VPNs "Let us handle all your internet traffic.. you can trust us.. we're free!" No thank you.
For the same reason you trust your ISP? It handles all your internet traffic; and depending on where you live, probably has government-mandated back doors, or is willing to cooperate with arbitrary requests from law-enforcement agencies. That's why TLS exists, after all. All Internet traffic is wiretapped.
I have a contract with my ISP, I can know who runs the company and I can sue the company if they violate anything they promised.
Re: 8M users' AI conversations sold for profit by "privacy" extensions
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the same reason you trust your ISP? It handles all your internet traffic; and depending on where you live, probably has government-mandated back doors, or is willing to cooperate with arbitrary requests from law-enforcement agencies. That's why TLS exists, after all. All Internet traffic is wiretapped.
I have a contract with my ISP, I can know who runs the company and I can sue the company if they violate anything they promised.
Yeah, and in your contract with ISP you explicitly agree to file any lawsuit against them in small claims court only. Although you can probably go and complain to FCC about them?
Re: 8M users' AI conversations sold for profit by "privacy" extensions
#156“ A few weeks ago, I was wrestling with a major life decision. Like I've grown used to doing, I opened Claude”
Is this where we’re at with AI?
Re: 8M users' AI conversations sold for profit by "privacy" extensions
#157I don't understand why so many people are using / trusting VPNs "Let us handle all your internet traffic.. you can trust us.. we're free!" No thank you.
For the same reason you trust your ISP? It handles all your internet traffic; and depending on where you live, probably has government-mandated back doors, or is willing to cooperate with arbitrary requests from law-enforcement agencies. That's why TLS exists, after all. All Internet traffic is wiretapped.
Because I pay the ISP, it is heavily regulated, and they actually make a lot of money from being an ISP?
Re: 8M users' AI conversations sold for profit by "privacy" extensions
#158“ A few weeks ago, I was wrestling with a major life decision. Like I've grown used to doing, I opened Claude” Is this where we’re at with AI?
Delegating life decisions to AI is obviously quite stupid but it can really help lay out and question your thoughts even if it's obviously biased.
Re: 8M users' AI conversations sold for profit by "privacy" extensions
#159Am I just paranoid or open router is the next bomb ticking to a privacy explosion? What is their business model anyway?
>What is their business model anyway?
They take a 5.5% fee whenever you buy credits. There's also a discount for opting-in to share your prompts for training.
Re: 8M users' AI conversations sold for profit by "privacy" extensions
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its the reason why they found it because the code was in extension. Before manifest v3, extensions could just load external scripts and there's no way you could tell what they were actually doing.
Wait, does that mean Manifest v3 is so neutered that it can't load a ` ` tag into the page if an extension needed to? If so, I feel like something that limited is hardly even a browser extension interface in the traditional sense.
Most browser extensions don’t need to insert script tags that point to arbitrary URLs on the internet. You can inject scripts that are bundled with the extension (you don’t even need to use an actual script tag). This is one part of manifest v3 that I think was actually a good change - ad blockers don’t do this so I don’t think Google had an ulterior motive for this particular limitation.