FTC To Ban Avast From Selling Browsing Data For Advertising Purposes (bleepingcomputer.com) 28
The U.S. FTC will order Avast to pay $16.5 million and ban the company from selling the users' web browsing data or licensing it for advertising purposes. From a report: The complaint says Avast violated millions of consumers' rights by collecting, storing, and selling their browsing data without their knowledge and consent while misleading them that the products used to harvest their data would block online tracking. "While the FTC's privacy lawsuits routinely take on firms that misrepresent their data practices, Avast's decision to expressly market its products as safeguarding people's browsing records and protecting data from tracking only to then sell those records is especially galling," said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan.
"Moreover, the volume of data Avast released is staggering: the complaint alleges that by 2020 Jumpshot had amassed "more than eight petabytes of browsing information dating back to 2014." More specifically, the FTC says UK-based company Avast Limited harvested consumers' web browsing information without their knowledge or consent using Avast browser extensions and antivirus software since at least 2014.
"Moreover, the volume of data Avast released is staggering: the complaint alleges that by 2020 Jumpshot had amassed "more than eight petabytes of browsing information dating back to 2014." More specifically, the FTC says UK-based company Avast Limited harvested consumers' web browsing information without their knowledge or consent using Avast browser extensions and antivirus software since at least 2014.
Fraud (Score:2)
You mean mass fraud. (Score:2)
How is what Avast did was not a fraud?
...harvested consumers' web browsing information without their knowledge or consent using...browser extensions and antivirus software...
How is it we are to believe every other anti-virus vendor, isn't doing the same thing?
I mean..they're all advertising how they'll "protect" you "online" in some way, right? How many of them buried the clause to sell your data on page 174 of a EULA not even lawyers read to clarify what "consent" means today?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The decision maker(s) behind this should go to prison.
Windows Defender has been "good enough" for ages (Score:5, Informative)
Windows Defender has been "good enough" for a long time, if you're a Windows user. I'm baffled why anyone would bother with another antivirus program, unless you spend all your time downloading porn and warez.
It makes me laugh when you Google something like "recommended antivirus", and you have the likes of pcmag.com and techradar.com frantically promoting various paid software, complete with affiliate links that give a percentage of every sale to the review site. Not a whisper about the antivirus that's bundled with the OS.
Re:Windows Defender has been "good enough" for age (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Windows Defender has been "good enough" for age (Score:4, Funny)
Pretty much this. It's actually astonishing that there IS a MS product that doesn't instantly make you wonder "ok, how do I turn it off and keep it off" that people still reach for alternative antivirus.
We're just too used to anything MS being absolute garbage and needing an alternative, preferably one that keeps the MS junk offline, too.
Don't let that forest hit you in the face. (Score:1)
It makes me laugh when you Google something like "recommended antivirus", and you have the likes of pcmag.com and techradar.com frantically promoting various paid software, complete with affiliate links that give a percentage of every sale to the review site. Not a whisper about the antivirus that's bundled with the OS.
It makes me laugh that we're here talking about a company being fined millions for telemetry abuse, while Citizen Whisper assumes Microsoft, isn't.
Re: (Score:1)
Windows Defender has been "good enough" for a long time, if you're a Windows user. I'm baffled why anyone would bother with another antivirus program, unless you spend all your time downloading porn and warez.
It makes me laugh when you Google something like "recommended antivirus", and you have the likes of pcmag.com and techradar.com frantically promoting various paid software, complete with affiliate links that give a percentage of every sale to the review site. Not a whisper about the antivirus that's bundled with the OS.
Windows Defender is good. No argument there.
On the other hand, it still might not be enough for you, especially if you are a corporate user. Your adversaries will assume that if you are using Windows, you will be using at least Windows Defender. They will craft their attacks accordingly, to bypass the protections. It is not as easy as it used to be (because the Defender does a pretty decent job) but it can be done. It helps when they know what they are up against and can easily test their attack against Win
Through the Looking Glass (Score:4, Funny)
So the anti-tracking and privacy service was actually a super-tracking and identifying service, and it was doing the exact opposite of what it was supposed to be doing? And people paid for this 'service'.
You can't make this shit up, I swear to god.
Re: (Score:3)
They even named it after some old-timey pirate jargon. The balls on these fuckers...
Avast ye - $16.5MM for millions of users (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what did Avast charge each user for the privilege ?
You sound angry and confused. Unsurprisingly... Avast charged nothing.
The large bulk of the Avast userbase are running the "free" version so maybe put your anger back in the wallet and save it for later?
If it's "free", YOU are the product. It has always been thus.
Re: Avast ye - $16.5MM for millions of users (Score:2)
No, "free" does NOT mean you're the product.
Especially when you are a little more tech savvy than average and know your way around computers. Then you stay away from proprietary OS's and run FOSS software.
In other news, I haven't touched an antivirus in 25 years. Any of aforementioned tech savvy users would know how to avoid PEBCAK and to not click/open/download the usual suspect link.
Re: (Score:2)
In other news, I haven't touched an antivirus in 25 years.
So you're proud of running all those botnets?
I'd love to know how you've avoided all the infectious drive-by gunk being served up as adverts. I have serious doubts about your claimed tech savvy chops.
Just take your devices out back and brun them. For the greater good.
Re: Avast ye - $16.5MM for millions of users (Score:2)
Maybe try some domain blocker on your router and mobile devices. If you like, pihole makes it easy.
I can't remember the last time I've seen ads on any of my devices. I must admit I'm shocked when I have to use someone else's device or when someone wants to show me something on their adfeeder. People really eat all that shit? Ew.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I am angry. Per wikipedia [wikipedia.org] Avast's annual revenue (2020 numbers) was more than $800MM and had more than 400 million users.
The $16.6MM is a drop in the bucket, it amounts to around 4 cents per user and around a week's revenue. Why would they bother to comply when the penalty is so low
Privacy theft is not a victimless crime and it does not follow that if you give someone something for no payment that they have the right to do anything they want to you. If I eat a free sample of cheese at costco do I have t
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I am angry.
Of course you are. Which is why you immediately stopped using Google, Meta, Apple, your ISP, your financial institutions, your revenue collection agency, drivers license processing agency, visa agency and pretty much *every* other "service" out there that is doing this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what your point is
My original point? Your glaring ignorance. Nothing more.
Too many (Score:2)
One company down, half a dozen web browsers, OS makers, and ISPs to go.
Put some teeth into it.
At least... (Score:2)
When you feel frustrated about you crappy job, just think: "at least I don't work there!"
10 years profit wrongdoing (Score:3)
Wrongdoing at least since 2014.
Now 2024 and the U.S. FTC will order Avast to pay $16.5 million and ban the company from selling the users' web browsing data or licensing it for advertising purposes.
1. Cease selling user data, they already sold it multiple times = no big deal for them.
2. $16.5 million will appeal and pass the bill to paying customers and is likely a portion of the 10 years profit on wrongdoing.
3. Persons in charge may not be made personally liable for this.
4. Shareholders are entirely safe, maybe a little dent that will be erased with a press release like "We are committed to protected our users' privacy... blah, blah..."
What good are rules (Score:2)