LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, Feb 06, 2026, 7:45 PM UTC

zelphirkalt wrote: post #245

Dylan16807 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you talking about Recall, which got such huge negative press they delayed it a year and added a clear opt-in? And never sent anything off the device itself? If anyone has evidence of constant tracking and reporting then please share it.

Well, I won't touch Windows 11 with a ten feet pole and I don't know if what I am referring to is called "Recall". Not that much into the MS terminology. I also read about Windows 11 having all kinds of shenanigans to suddenly upload data into onedrive. Wouldn't be surprised, if that also included screenshots, or could "accidentally" lead to that happening. Screenshotting every few seconds is unacceptable even if it…

Post by brookst » Sat, Feb 07, 2026, 5:15 AM UTC

jmward01 wrote: post #47

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.

Do they respect my data? Why do they get to track me across sites when I clearly don't want them to but someone can't scrape their data when they don't want them to. Why should big companies get the pass but individuals not? They clearly consider internet traffic fair game and are invasive and abusive about it so it is not only fair to be invasive and abusive back, it is self defense at this point.

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 07, 2026, 2:38 PM UTC

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.

Post by cxr » Sat, Feb 07, 2026, 2:40 PM UTC

mosselman wrote: post #201

direwolf20 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Post by cxr » Sat, Feb 07, 2026, 2:47 PM UTC

bastawhiz wrote: post #184

cxr wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the first place, no one said they needed to, only that they probably did. Secondly, it's not "3000 extensions". They didn't somehow magically divine that the 2953 (+/-47) extensions we see here were the ones that they needed to download in order to be able to exploit the content-accessible resources described in their extension manifest. They looked at a much larger set, and it got filtered down to these 2953 that…

Lol no, did you even read the list? You could pay someone to just search "LinkedIn" and "talent" and "recruiting" on the chrome web store and download each extension. It's probably harder to automate this than it is to do it manually. This is something you could develop in an afternoon and pay a small team of people to do for pennies on the dollar. Even ten thousand extensions is nothing. Spread that over years and t…