Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MacDefender" data-source="post: 878402" data-attributes="member: 83059">Yeah I think this is a separate issue. Emsisoft is the only AV that I&#039;ve seen that has a canary clause: <a href="https://www.emsisoft.com/en/company/privacy/" target="_blank">Emsisoft | Privacy Policy</a>In terms of whether or not vendors are bucking to pressure to whitelist state sponsored malware, to be honest, it&#039;s been a mysterious grey area. Do we know for sure that NortonLifeLock isn&#039;t going to comply with CIA/DOJ arm twisting or Kaspersky isn&#039;t going to be pressured by the KGB? Honestly I don&#039;t know.I&#039;m not holding F-Secure on a pedestal. Technically Emsisoft&#039;s statement also covers just Emsisoft, not the BD engine, for example. That&#039;s going to be complicated.For the scope of this thread, I really wanted to focus on the data collection policy of cloud based intelligence.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MacDefender, post: 878402, member: 83059"] Yeah I think this is a separate issue. Emsisoft is the [B]only[/B] AV that I've seen that has a canary clause: [URL="https://www.emsisoft.com/en/company/privacy/"]Emsisoft | Privacy Policy[/URL] In terms of whether or not vendors are bucking to pressure to whitelist state sponsored malware, to be honest, it's been a mysterious grey area. Do we know for sure that NortonLifeLock isn't going to comply with CIA/DOJ arm twisting or Kaspersky isn't going to be pressured by the KGB? Honestly I don't know. I'm not holding F-Secure on a pedestal. Technically Emsisoft's statement also covers just Emsisoft, not the BD engine, for example. That's going to be complicated. For the scope of this thread, I really wanted to focus on the data collection policy of cloud based intelligence. [/QUOTE]

Verification