Prorootect

Level 53
Verified
They (Google, Avast, etc) track you to defend you against terrorists and other bad actors like bandits, villains... So tracking is good for me and for you.
Better to fight for better security than for privacy.
Fighting for privacy is a war lost in advance.
I no longer use privacy extensions like Privacy Possum, Ghostery, and my browsers are lighter.
I've already said that...
 

Milosh

From Avast
Verified
Developer
When the fox hunting starts, the fox doesn't have much chance to say anything, does it?
So yes, when you were installing Avast, you got this screen right after the install started. It changed over the years a bit. Design or a word here or there.
But essentially was always the same. "No, thanks" = no data shared. The cries that it is not really anonymized and could be would be... in the age of Facebook ... are pretty hypocritical

1581666496424.png
 

RejZoR

Level 14
Verified
When the fox hunting starts, the fox doesn't have much chance to say anything, does it?
So yes, when you were installing Avast, you got this screen right after the install started. It changed over the years a bit. Design or a word here or there.
But essentially was always the same. "No, thanks" = no data shared. The cries that it is not really anonymized and could be would be... in the age of Facebook ... are pretty hypocritical

View attachment 233672
Especially since everyone is so loud how avast!'s data could be de-anonymized. Ok then, what about Google or Facebook? Has anyone ever proved data they are selling to advertisers is correctly anonymized and could never ever be traced back to users? But everyone is so sure only avast!'s data has that potential and no other. And with the amount of data Facebook and Google collect FAAAAAAAR exceeds anything avast! has ever collected.
 
F

ForgottenSeer 823865

Especially since everyone is so loud how avast!'s data could be de-anonymized. Ok then, what about Google or Facebook? Has anyone ever proved data they are selling to advertisers is correctly anonymized and could never ever be traced back to users? But everyone is so sure only avast!'s data has that potential and no other. And with the amount of data Facebook and Google collect FAAAAAAAR exceeds anything avast! has ever collected.
Unlike Google or Facebook, which is obvious why:
- An Av isn't supposed to use your datas and resell them for marketing purpose of 3rd parties.
- An AV doesn't need your datas to operate any of its functions, even a web filter doesn't need to collect datas in raw form but just hashes.
- An AV is about security not data mining.

Avast deserve all this backfire, they got greedy, they pay the price today.
I always found it shitty since v4, the current situation doesn't changed much my opinion about it.
The only things i feel unfair to Avast from all this, is an obvious agenda from a "less-than-impartial" news provider, who said nothing in the past.
Avast didn't started data mining last month.
As a company, Avast can do whatever they want with their products, they warned their user beforehand, so in my book, there is nothing outrageous. people are free to use it or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RejZoR

Level 14
Verified
Unlike Google or Facebook, which is obvious why:
- An Av isn't supposed to use your datas and resell them for marketing purpose of 3rd parties.
- An AV doesn't need your datas to operate any of its functions, even a web filter doesn't need to collect datas in raw form but just hashes.
- An AV is about security not data mining.

Avast deserve all this backfire, i always found it shitty since v4, the current situation doesn't changed much my opinion about it.
the only things i feel unfair to Avast from all this, is an obvious agenda from a "less-than-impartial" news provider, who said nothing in the past.
Avast didn't started data mining last month.
That's not what I said or asked. How does everyone know data Facebook and Google are selling to advertisers is so perfectly anonymized and avast!'s wasn't? Nothing else is in question here because consent WAS given whether you like it or not. If people just click AGREE mindlessly, then that's their problem. The dialog wasn't a 35 pages long EULA bullshit, it was a simple dialog that asked users about data sharing.
 
F

ForgottenSeer 823865

That's not what I said or asked. How does everyone know data Facebook and Google are selling to advertisers is so perfectly anonymized and avast!'s wasn't? Nothing else is in question here because consent WAS given whether you like it or not. If people just click AGREE mindlessly, then that's their problem. The dialog wasn't a 35 pages long EULA bullshit, it was a simple dialog that asked users about data sharing.
You miss the point that Google and Facebook business operandi is about collecting datas and sell them to advertisers. It doesn't matter if datas are anonymous or not since people go those platforms to willingly share their life on them.
Avast isn't an ad-oriented company/platform, it is a damn security vendor, not a data mining company ! do you get it?
You can't use Google or Facebook as a comparison. Those have a different scope.
You want compare Avast with something, find another security vendor doing the same.
 

RejZoR

Level 14
Verified
You miss the point that Google and Facebook business operandi is about collecting datas and sell them to advertisers. It doesn't matter if datas are anonymous or not since people go those platforms to willingly share their life on them.
Avast isn't an ad-oriented company/platform, it is a damn security vendor, not a data mining company ! do you get it?
You can't use Google or Facebook as a comparison. Those have a different scope.
You want compare Avast with something, find another security vendor doing the same.
You don't understand it do you? IT DOES NOT MATTER. People keep saying avast! was doing behind their backs, Which is complete bullshit. They were asking users with full page dialog. So, now that that's out of the way, people are saying their data was not anonymized correctly. So, I'll ask you again, how can you prove Google and Facebook data being sold is anonymized correctly, but avast!'s isn't?

Also it's complete BS to assume people know Facebook and Google are selling data. Because if people ACTUALLY knew the extent of data hoarding and selling they are doing, no one would be using anything from them.

This isn't me being avast! fanboy, because if you dare to go down that road you'll discredit anything and everything you said. Haven't been a fanboy of avast! for well over decade. And you can find my posts questioning their methods or decisions over the years.
 
F

ForgottenSeer 823865

You don't understand it do you? IT DOES NOT MATTER. People keep saying avast! was doing behind their backs, Which is complete bullshit.
They were asking users with full page dialog.
it is why i said in my above post it is unfair to Avast and is was exposed with some agenda in mind from PCrapMag

So, now that that's out of the way, people are saying their data was not anonymized correctly. So, I'll ask you again, how can you prove Google and Facebook data being sold is anonymized correctly, but avast!'s isn't?
did you read my previous pots? Google or Facebook are out of topic, you are the one mentioning them to justify your defense towards Avast.
it doesn't matter if avast properly anonymize the datas, they aren't supposed to collect and sell those datas to marketing departments of 3rd parties in the first place.

Also it's complete BS to assume people know Facebook and Google are selling data. Because if people ACTUALLY knew the extent of data hoarding and selling they are doing, no one would be using anything from them.
Come on...are you serious? Did you ever use Facebook or Google?
People don't give a damn about data collection, even if plastered all over their face, they knows it adn theuy don't care, why anonymizing datas on Facebook when the first thing they ask is you name, photo, phone number and even a copy of your ID...please don't make me laugh...

This isn't me being avast! fanboy, because if you dare to go down that road you'll discredit anything and everything you said. Haven't been a fanboy of avast! for well over decade. And you can find my posts questioning their methods or decisions over the years.
I dont care about you being a fanboy or not, your life, your choice.
just when pointing other to comparison, be sure they have the same purpose as the one you defend.
As if i defend a murderer by pointing that a military special operator also kills people... LOL.
 

jackuars

Level 24
Verified
Because if people ACTUALLY knew the extent of data hoarding and selling they are doing, no one would be using anything from them.
To be honest it would only matter to a few security and privacy geeks, and they are just a minuscule number with respect to the population.
Avast, Google & Facebook will still be used by millions no matter what happens.
 
F

ForgottenSeer 823865

To be honest it would only matter to a few security and privacy geeks, and they are just a minuscule number with respect to the population.
Avast, Google & Facebook will still be used by millions no matter what happens.
Exactly. I often see security/privacy geeks stating stuff totally out of the real world. As if they believe that what they see through their own looking glass is shared by everyone else...
 

RejZoR

Level 14
Verified
The reason I brought Google and Facebook into discussion is because everyone seems to have huge problems with ways of anonymization used by avast! and are literally screaming about it, but nothing is ever said about Google or Facebook. And I know Facebook has to be far worse given how many dumb [removed]ups they've made so far.
 

Lenny_Fox

Level 11
And with the amount of data Facebook and Google collect FAAAAAAAR exceeds anything avast! has ever collected.
That is not true when looking at the per browsing session data gathered. Google only knew the same amount of data when the website the user was browsing on used Google services and the user was logged into Google, same applies to Facebook only knew the same amount of data when the website used Facebook services and the user was logged into Facebook.

In a broader context, you are right that Facebook and Google collect far more big data than Avast has ever collected. But then again Avast's primary business is to protect their users from malware while Facebook and Google primary business is selling targeted advertisements based on big data collection.

On top of that the CEO of Avast himself published that at second thought the gathering and selling consumer data did not fit well with a company aiming to protect their users. In this age of 'alternative facts' I think it adds to Avast credit that Avast did not played down the relative loss of privacy* nor the fact that the user gave his/her consent, but decided to defend their reputation.

* Data could only be de-personalized when the AVAST data could be matched with data of their own website in which the user revealed its identity (e.g. sign-on for email/info/coupon, shopping cart check-out, website log-in, etc). In all of these cases the identity of the user would be known anyway. Buying Avast data "only"provided insight in surfing behavior before the user landed on the website buying this data.
 
Last edited:

Raiden

Level 17
Verified
Content Creator
For me, I expect this behaviour from the likes of Google and Facebook, but I dont expect this from a security company. I think this is where a lot of the backlash stems from. So yes Avast deserves this backlash.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, nothing in life is ever truly free. If Avast felt that offering a free version was no longer financially viable (which how could it when you offer a free version that has 95%+ of the features of your paid offerings), then they should have stopped offering the free version and went paid only like the vast majority of security software. Sure you will lose some customers, but if your product is good, then your true fans will follow you. If they wanted to continue to offer a free version, then it should be stripped down to basics and have limited functionality. Instead you have this mess, but as it's already been said, they will still have all their users as they offer a free version and most people don't care enough about privacy anyways.
 
Last edited:

plat1098

Level 20
Verified
How can anyone bash the typical consumer who disdains the "end user agreements"?! This is a major shuck-and-jive by shady borderline companies who freely exploit this very human tendency to click thru a windy, jargon-filled jumble of :poop: because they trust the product, it's free and they want it NOW. Old, old exploit. Is the collective "conscience" of Avast better now, since the money machine has been repackaged to seem more "user friendly"?

Like I said before: it's not the data mining, it's the extent and hiding of the true purposes. It's cynicism at its "finest."
 
F

ForgottenSeer 823865

But then again Avast's primary business is to protect their users from malware while Facebook and Google primary business is selling targeted advertisements based on big data collection.
On top of that the CEO of Avast himself published that at second thought the gathering and selling consumer data did not fit well with a company aiming to protect their users.
+1 million.
Damn...i was starting to think i'm an alien or what ? LOL

For me, I expect this behaviour from the likes of Google and Facebook, but I dont expect this from a security company. I think this is where alot of the backlash stems from. So yes Avast deserves this backlash.
Exactly.
 

RejZoR

Level 14
Verified
That is not true when looking at the per browsing session data gathered. Google only knew the same amount of data when the website the user was browsing on used Google services and the user was logged into Google, same applies to Facebook only knew the same amount of data when the website used Facebook services and the user was logged into Facebook.

In a broader context, you are right that Facebook and Google collect far more big data than Avast has ever collected. But then again Avast's primary business is to protect their users from malware while Facebook and Google primary business is selling targeted advertisements based on big data collection.

On top of that the CEO of Avast himself published that at second thought the gathering and selling consumer data did not fit well with a company aiming to protect their users. In this age of 'alternative facts' I think it adds to Avast credit that Avast did not played down the relative loss of privacy* nor the fact that the user gave his/her consent, but decided to defend their reputation.

* Data could only be de-personalized when the AVAST data could be matched with data of their own website in which the user revealed its identity (e.g. sign-on for email/info/coupon, shopping cart check-out, website log-in, etc). In all of these cases the identity of the user would be known anyway. Buying Avast data "only"provided insight in surfing behavior before the user landed on the website buying this data.
Yeah, well, show me a webpage that doesn't use "something" from Google. If it's not their login, it's their Double Click junk and if it's not either of this it's reCAPTCHA and Google Fonts and AJAX and if maybe it's not some of these it's Google SafeBrowsing. And if it's not something else, it's Google's DNSSEC or DNS itself pinging back everything. Oh, you're using Google Chrome? Then it literally doesn't matter what webpage has stuffed inside, you're literally telling them everything.

It's also hilarious how everyone jumps into Google's defense with "but avast!'s main business was protection". Well, I thought Google's main business was search providing, not data hoarding? How can people say they didn't know things about avast! when they said it as openly as they possibly could? I mean, the image above by Milos is pretty self explanatory...
 
Top