Live data from Hacker News

8M users' AI conversations sold for profit by "privacy" extensions

koi.ai

171–180 of 261 posts

Re: 8M users' AI conversations sold for profit by "privacy" extensions

#171

I stick to extensions that Mozilla has manually vetted as part of the Firefox recommended extensions program. > Firefox is committed to helping protect you against third-party software that may inadvertently compromise your data – or worse – breach your privacy with malicious intent. Before an extension receives Recommended status, it undergoes rigorous technical review by staff security experts. https://support.mozi…

The article states that Google has done the same for this extension as part of providing its "Featured" badge.

Re: 8M users' AI conversations sold for profit by "privacy" extensions

#172
Why is a security researcher using a Free VPN? The standard wisdom is "if its free, you're the product". So you're going to proxy all your sensitive traffic through a free thing? Its not great to trust paid services with your data, nevermind free stuff.

Sometimes knowing tech makes us think we're somehow better and can bypass high level wisdom.

Re: 8M users' AI conversations sold for profit by "privacy" extensions

#173

I am surprised because google review team rejects half of my extensions and apps. Sometimes things don't make sense to me, like how "Uber Driver app access background location and there is no way to change that from settings" - https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/783227

If Google would care at all for their users, they'd tell WhatsApp to not require the use of the Contacts permission only to add names to numbers when you don't share the Contacts with the App. Or they'd tell WhatsApp to allow granting microphone permissions for one single call, instead of requesting permanent microphone permissions. All apps that I know of respect the flow of "Ask every time", all but Meta's app. Goo…

That's all opinionated, and the latter is part of the OS, not WhatsApp. Not liking how an app works does not compare to an app exfiltrating data without your consent.

Re: 8M users' AI conversations sold for profit by "privacy" extensions

#174

“ 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?

People used to cast lots to make major life decisions.

Putting a token predictor in the mix — especially one incapable of any actual understanding — seems like a natural evolution.

Absolved of burden of navigating our noisy, incomplete and dissonant thoughts, we can surrender ourselves to the oracle and just obey.

Re: 8M users' AI conversations sold for profit by "privacy" extensions

#175
Note that this is a pretty blatant GDPR violation and you should report this to the local data protection agency if you are a EU resident and care about this (especially if you've used this extension). Their privacy policy claims the data collection is consent-based and that the app settings also let you revoke this consent. According to the article, the latter isn't the case and the user is never informed of the extent of the collection and the risk of sensitive or specially protected personal information (e.g. sexual orientation) being part of the data they're collecting. Their privacy policy states the collected data is filtered to remove this kind of information but that's irrelevant because processing necessarily happens after collection and the GDPR already applies at the start of that pipeline.

If Urban VPN is indeed closely affiliated with the data broker, a GDPR fine might also affect that company too given how these fines work. There is a high bar for the kind of misconduct that would result in a fine but it seems plausible that they're being knowingly and deliberately deceptive and engaging in widespread data collection that is intentionally invasive and covert. That would be a textbook example for the kind of behavior the GDPR is meant to target with fines.

The same likely applies to the other extensions mentioned in the article. Yes, "if the product is free, you are the product" but that is exactly why the GDPR exists. The problem isn't that they're harvesting user data but that they're being intentionally deceptive and misleading in their statements about this, claim they are using consent as the legal basis without having obtained it[0], and they're explicitly contradicting themselves in their claims ("we're not collecting sensitive information that would need special consideration but if we do we make sure to find it and remove it before sharing your information but don't worry because it's mostly used in aggregate except when it isn't"). Just because you except some bruising when picking up martial arts as a hobby doesn't mean your sparring partner gets to pummel your face in when you're already knocked out.

[0]: Because "consent" seems to be a hard concept for some people to grasp: it's literally analogous to what you'd want to establish before having sex with someone (though to be fair: the laws are much more lenient about unclear consent for sex because it's less reasonable to expect it to be documented with a paper trail like you can easily do for software). I'll try to keep it SFW but my place of work is not your place of work so think carefully if you want to copy this into your next Powerpoint presentation.

Does your prospective sexual partner have any reason to strongly believe that they can't refuse your advances because doing so would limit their access to something else (e.g. you took them on a date in your car and they can't afford a taxi/uber and public transport isn't available so they rely on you to get back home, aka "the implication")? Then they can't give you voluntary consent because you're (intentionally or not) pressuring them into it. The same goes if you make it much harder for them to refuse than to agree (I can't think of a sex analogy for this because this seems obvious in direct human interactions but somehow some people still think hiding "reject all non-essential" is an option you are allowed to hide between two more steps when the "accept all" button is right there even if the law explicitly prohibits these shenanigans).

Is your prospective sexual partner underage or do they appear extremely naive (e.g. you suspect they've never had any sex ed and don't know what having sex might entail or the risks involved like pregnancy, STIs or, depending on the acts, potential injuries)? Then they probably can't give you informed consent because they don't fully understand what they're consenting to. For data processing this would be failure to disclose the nature of the collection/processing/storage that's about to happen. And no, throwing the entire 100 page privacy policy at them with a consent dialog at the start hardly counts the same way throwing a biology textbook at a minor doesn't make them able to consent.

Is your prospective sexual partner giving you mixed signals but seems to be generally okay with the idea of "taking things further"? Then you're still missing specific consent and better take things one step at a time checking in on them if they're still comfortable with the direction you're taking things before you decide to raw dog their butt (even if they might turn out to be into that). Or in software terms, it's probably better to limit the things you seek consent for to what's currently happening for the user (e.g. a checkbox on a contact form that informs them what you actually intend to do with that data specifically) rather than try to get it all in one big consent modal at the start - this also comes with the advantage that you can directly demonstrate when and how the specific consent relevant to that data was obtained when later having to justify how that data was used in case something goes wrong.

Is your now-active sexual partner in a position where they can no longer tell you to stop (e.g. because they're tied up and ball-gagged)? Then the consent you did obtain isn't revokable (and thus again invalid) because they need to be able to opt out (this is what "safe words" are for and why your dentist tells you to raise your hand where they can see it if you need them to stop during a procedure - given that it's hard to talk with someone's hands in your mouth). In software this means withdrawing consent (or "opting out") should be as easy as it was to give it in the first place - an easy solution is having a "privacy settings" screen easily accessible in the same place as the privacy policy and other mandatory information that at the very least covers everything you stuffed in that consent dialog I told you not to use, as well as anything you tucked away in other forms downstream. This also gives you a nice place to link to at every opportunity to keep your user at ease and relaxed to make the journey more enjoyable for both of you.

Re: 8M users' AI conversations sold for profit by "privacy" extensions

#176

The company behind this appears to be "real" and incorporated in Delaware. > Urban Cyber Security INC https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_de/5136044 https://www.urbancybersec.com/about-us/ I found two addresses: > 1007 North Orange Street 4th floor Wilmington, DE 19801 US > 510 5th Ave 3rd floor New York, NY 10036 United States and even a phone number: +1 917-690-8380 https://www.manhattan-nyc.com/businesses/urba…

> Urban VPN is operated by Urban Cyber Security Inc., which is affiliated with BiScience (B.I Science (2009) Ltd.), a data broker company. BiScience is an Israeli company.

Israel is the new Russia, I guess.

Re: 8M users' AI conversations sold for profit by "privacy" extensions

#177

[flagged]

A big problem is also that you can pretty much only grant permission for one specific site or all sites and this very much depends on which of those two options the extension uses.

For example there's no need for the "inject custom JS or CSS into websites" extensions to need permission to read and write data on every single website you visit. If you only want to use them to make a few specific sites more accessible to you that doesn't mean you're okay with them touching your online banking. Especially when most of these already let you define specific URLs or patterns each rule/script should apply to.

I understand that there are still vectors for data exfiltration when the same extension has permissions on two different sites and that "code injection as a service" is inherently risky (although cross-origin policies can already lock this down somewhat) but in 2025 I'd hope we could have a more granular permission model for browser extensions that actually supports sandboxing.

Re: 8M users' AI conversations sold for profit by "privacy" extensions

#180
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just spreading FUD where an answer could have been provided. > Before an extension receives Recommended status, it undergoes rigorous technical review by staff security experts. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/recommended-extensions-...

That link doesn't answer the question though. It states that the extension is reviewed before receiving the recommended status. It does not state that updates are reviewed.

They do, and it takes longer for updates to Recommended extensions to be reviewed as a result.

This is what the Firefox add-ons team sent to me when one of my extensions was invited to the Recommended program:

> If you’re interested in Control Panel for Twitter becoming a Firefox Recommended Extension there are a couple of conditions to consider:

> 1) Mozilla staff security experts manually review every new submission of all Recommended extensions; this ensures all Recommended extensions remain compliant with AMO’s privacy and security standards. Due to this rigorous monitoring you can expect slightly longer review wait times for new version submissions (up to two weeks in some cases, though it’s usually just a few days).

> 2) Developers agree to actively maintain their Recommended extension (i.e. make timely bug fixes and/or generally tend to its ongoing maintenance). Basically we don't want to include abandoned or otherwise decaying content, so if the day arrives you intend to no longer maintain Control Panel for Twitter, we simply ask you to communicate that to us so we can plan for its removal from the program.

Post reply on HN