Live data from Hacker News

LinkedIn is searching your browser extensions

browsergate.eu

311–320 of 836 posts

Re: LinkedIn is searching your browser extensions

#311
post #280
post #14

The headline seems pretty misleading. Here’s what seems to actually be going on: > Every time you open LinkedIn in a Chrome-based browser, LinkedIn’s JavaScript executes a silent scan of your installed browser extensions. The scan probes for thousands of specific extensions by ID, collects the results, encrypts them, and transmits them to LinkedIn’s servers. This does seem invasive. It also seems like what I’d expect…

Why is JavaScript running in a page even allowed to know what extensions I have? Is this also what sites use to see I've got an ad blocker? Just run everything in a safe environment that it can't look out of.

The page isn't allowed to know what extensions you have, instead LinkedIn is looking for various evidence that extensions are installed, like if an extension was to create a specific html element, LinkedIn could look for evidence of that element being there.

Since the extensions are running on the same page as LinkedIn (some of them are explicitly modifying the LinkedIn the website) it's impossible to sandbox them so that linked in can't see evidence of them. And yes this is how a site knows you have an ad blocker is installed.

Re: LinkedIn is searching your browser extensions

#312
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but the language of "your computer" implies files on your computer, as it would be what people commonly call it. Merely just the extension is not enough. If it has the ability to scan your bookmarks, or visited site history, that would lend more credence to using the term "computer". The title ought to have said "linkedIn illegally scans your browser", and that would make clear what is being done without being sensat…

Are you defending LinkedIn’s behavior right now or are you just happy to be more technically correct (the best kind of correct!) than those around you? Trying to understand the angle

The browser fingerprinting described is ubiquitous on the internet, used by players large and small. There are even libraries to do this.

Like OP, I don't consider behavior confined to the browser to be my computer. "Scans your browser" is both technically correct and less misleading. "Scans your computer" was chosen instead, to get more clicks.

Re: LinkedIn is searching your browser extensions

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is why I run ad blockers. It's pretty wild that we live in a world where the actual FBI has recommended we use ad blockers to protect ourselves, and if everyone actually listened, much of the Internet (and economy) as we know it would disappear. The FBI is like "you should protect yourself from the way that the third largest company in the world does business", and the average person's response is "nah, that w…

Don't worry, soon you'll need to pay every website 5.99 a month because AI is destroying click through rates. The internet will likely be far worse without ads than with ads. Solving the tracking problem doesn't need to be mixed up with blocking ads outright. What's funny is that tracking isn't nearly as meaningful for click through rates on ads as relevance to what's on the page, and yet so much effort is placed ont…

> The internet will likely be far worse without ads than with ads

This is highly debateable. I wouldn't mind paying a bit for the websites I am using as there are just a few platforms and some blogs that I would be happy to pay a small amount for.

Re: LinkedIn is searching your browser extensions

#314
post #14

The headline seems pretty misleading. Here’s what seems to actually be going on: > Every time you open LinkedIn in a Chrome-based browser, LinkedIn’s JavaScript executes a silent scan of your installed browser extensions. The scan probes for thousands of specific extensions by ID, collects the results, encrypts them, and transmits them to LinkedIn’s servers. This does seem invasive. It also seems like what I’d expect…

But I do take some issue with the alarmist framing of what’s going on.

I’ve come to mostly expect this behavior from most websites that run advertising code

We should be alarmed that websites we go to are fingerprinting us and tracking our behavior. This is problematic, full stop. The fact that most websites are doing this doesn't change that.

Re: LinkedIn is searching your browser extensions

#315
Despite the misleading headline, I really don't understand why anyone uses linkedin, there will inevitably be a trailing rely of comments claiming it has some irreplaceable value in professional networking, but I don't buy it. Nobody I've ever talked to has been able to articulate any actual value provided by "connecting" to another person on a social networking site. If you want to build professional connections go to lunch, join community calls, attend professional events, and go to conferences.

Re: LinkedIn is searching your browser extensions

#316
post #14

The headline seems pretty misleading. Here’s what seems to actually be going on: > Every time you open LinkedIn in a Chrome-based browser, LinkedIn’s JavaScript executes a silent scan of your installed browser extensions. The scan probes for thousands of specific extensions by ID, collects the results, encrypts them, and transmits them to LinkedIn’s servers. This does seem invasive. It also seems like what I’d expect…

But what would be the benefit of them doing that?

Re: LinkedIn is searching your browser extensions

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry, soon you'll need to pay every website 5.99 a month because AI is destroying click through rates. The internet will likely be far worse without ads than with ads. Solving the tracking problem doesn't need to be mixed up with blocking ads outright. What's funny is that tracking isn't nearly as meaningful for click through rates on ads as relevance to what's on the page, and yet so much effort is placed ont…

I'd be very happy with an internet without ads. Not that I see any ads anyway.

Even those of us who don't see ads see the structure that the ad-driven internet economy creates. Listicles, clickbait and AI-generated slop web pages, just trying to get more ad impressions. Sure, with an ad blocker I can see the low-quality content without an ad, but without the ad economy hopefully there'd be less incentive to create low-quality content to begin with.

Re: LinkedIn is searching your browser extensions

#319
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but the language of "your computer" implies files on your computer, as it would be what people commonly call it. Merely just the extension is not enough. If it has the ability to scan your bookmarks, or visited site history, that would lend more credence to using the term "computer". The title ought to have said "linkedIn illegally scans your browser", and that would make clear what is being done without being sensat…

> but the language of "your computer" implies files on your computer, as it would be what people commonly call it. Merely just the extension is not enough. But the language of "your computer" also implies software on your computer including but not limited to Chrome extensions.

It implies more than just the browser, which is likely why it was used for the post title. If it is exclusively limited to the browser, then "scans your browser" is more correct, and doesn't mislead the reader into thinking something is happening which isn't commonplace on the internet.

Re: LinkedIn is searching your browser extensions

#320
post #257
post #14

The headline seems pretty misleading. Here’s what seems to actually be going on: > Every time you open LinkedIn in a Chrome-based browser, LinkedIn’s JavaScript executes a silent scan of your installed browser extensions. The scan probes for thousands of specific extensions by ID, collects the results, encrypts them, and transmits them to LinkedIn’s servers. This does seem invasive. It also seems like what I’d expect…

> The scan probes for thousands of specific extensions by ID, collects the results Why exactly does Chrome even allow this in the first place!? This is the most surprising takeaway for me here, given browser vendors' focus on hardening against fingerprinting.

Firefox FTW. I was relieved to find this was a Chrome-only problem.
Post reply on HN