Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 263 posts

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#201

Post by mosselman »

direwolf20 wrote: post #164
cxr wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In order to create the data source that LinkedIn's extension-fingerprinting relies on to work, someone (at LinkedIn*?) almost certainly violated the Chrome Web Store TOS—by (perversely*) scraping it. * if LinkedIn didn't get it from an existing data source

Programmers don't appreciate the fact that you can just violate terms of service. You can just do it. It's okay. The police won't come after you. Usually.

Indeed. I read a lot of comments like these one you are responding on HN. It seems like there is a type of person who thinks that writing down what their rules are has some magical power.

“This isn’t what it was intended for”. Who cares?

A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away I would encounter warnings on pirating websites saying “If you are an FBI agent you are not allowed to continue on this site”. Imagine their utter disbelief and shock if they were to be arrested by an FBI agent that clicked past the warning anyway.

I agree is must be programmers as a type that like rules a lot and, they think, what a perfect world it could be if people would follow them.

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#202

Post by wolvoleo »

mrkramer wrote: post #99

LinkedIn is the worst walled garden of all of them.

I also really don't understand why their subscription is so extremely expensive for someone who is not a recruiter.

It's already a sycophantic cesspool of corporate drones repeating mindless PR. I unfollow everyone who re"tweets" feel-good memes or corporate crap and I have very few people I follow left over :) Critical discussion doesn't exist, if I comment anything that's not 100% celebratory of so-called company successes I get blocked.

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#203

Post by ikr678 »

Banditoz wrote: post #156

LinkedIn has been employing a lot of strange dark patterns recently: * Overriding scroll speed on Firefox Web. Not sure why. * Opening a profile on mobile web, then pressing back to go to last page, takes me to the LinkedIn homepage everytime. * One of their analytic URLs is a randomly generated path on www.linkedin.com, supposedly to make it harder to block. Regex rules on ublock origin sufficiently stop this. Anyon…

I always assumed mobile webpage misbehavior was to force you to use the app.

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#204

Post by Nextgrid »

direwolf20 wrote: post #171
Nextgrid wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their own tools suck, that’s the issue.

Third–party tools don't bring money to LinkedIn, that's the issue. Rather than try to compete, much easier to force you to use their tools! Reddit did the same thing.

Easy solution is to sell a plan that explicitly allows third-party tool usage. Then they get the money and the users get the tooling LinkedIn is incapable of building themselves.

(except they won't, because they're not after money but engagement, and their built-in tools suck on purpose to maximize wasted time)

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#205

Post by small_scombrus »

ikr678 wrote: post #203
Banditoz wrote: post #156

LinkedIn has been employing a lot of strange dark patterns recently: * Overriding scroll speed on Firefox Web. Not sure why. * Opening a profile on mobile web, then pressing back to go to last page, takes me to the LinkedIn homepage everytime. * One of their analytic URLs is a randomly generated path on www.linkedin.com, supposedly to make it harder to block. Regex rules on ublock origin sufficiently stop this. Anyon…

I always assumed mobile webpage misbehavior was to force you to use the app.

It could very much be confirmation bias, but I do feel like most "please use our app" popups appear after a mobile site breaks or refuses to load something

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#206

Post by ahoka »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #151
awesome_dude wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably a naive question, but... Doesn't the idea of swapping extension specific IDs to your browser specific extension IDs mean that instead of your browser being identifiable, you become identifiable? I mean, it goes from "Oh they have X, Y , and Z installed" to "Oh, it's jim bob, only he has that unique set of IDs for extensions"

yes thats how browser fingerprinting works and it is impossible to defeat because there are just too many variations in monitors (relevant for fonts), simple things like user agent, etc.

And browsers trying to mitigate fingerprinting are miserable to use (fixed window size with only Arial available, etc) and probably fingerprintable anyway.

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#207

Post by dominicrose »

bastard_op wrote: post #88

Chrome is the new IE6. Google set themselves up to be the next Microsoft and is "ad friendly" in all the creepy ways because that's what Google IS an ad company. All they've contributed to security is diminishing the capability of adblockers and letting malware to do bad things to you as consumers.

Brave feels like using Chrome. The transition was seemless even as a developer who uses the devtools. Obviously that's because it's almost the same code, but Brave is much more privacy friendly right?

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#208

Post by OJFord »

cbsks wrote: post #44

Looks like Firefox is immune. This works by looking for web accessible resources that are provided by the extensions. For Chrome, these are are available in a webpage via the URL chrome-extension://[PACKAGE ID]/[PATH] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/manif... On Firefox, web accessible resources are available at "moz-extension:// /myfile.png" is not your extension's ID. This ID is randomly gener…

Though LinkedIn in Firefox with uBlock Origin allowing just enough (not sure if that's relevant, just haven't run it without) does not last long without rocketing CPU & memory usage, fan spinning up, etc. (ime, anyway)

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#209

Post by duskdozer »

mistrial9 wrote: post #139
charcircuit wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why frame what you are trying to say like that? Businesses of all sizes deserve the ability to protect their businesses from abuse.

this exchange -- obvious critical / perhaps insurrection speech versus a stable voice of business economics -- should be within the purview of an orderly and predictable legal environment. BUT things moved quickly in the phone battles. Some people say that the legal system has never caught up to the data brokering, and in fact the surveillance state grew by leaps and bounds. So, reasonable people may disagree. This i…

>BUT things moved quickly in the phone battles. Some people say that the legal system has never caught up to the data brokering, and in fact the surveillance state grew by leaps and bounds.

Partially by discrepancy in how responsive you can be or comprehensive you must be to win the next round of cat-and-mouse, and partially because a private/corporate surveillance apparatus is useful to a government that might otherwise be hampered by constitutional bounds.

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#210

Post by shouldnt_be »

jmholla wrote: post #60
shouldnt_be wrote: post #58

I wrote an article about it a couple of months ago. I also explain why, how and a way to prevent it. https://javascript.plainenglish.io/the-extensions-you-use-ar...

To clarify, you talk about why it's possible, not why LinkedIn is doing it, right? Or did I miss something in your article.

From the article:

> ... it is used to check for abuse (bot use)

> If you follow a LinkedIn influencer and they get banned, now you know why.

Post reply on HN