4 ms·

Thanks for sharing this. This type of behavior is really bothersome and sadly many general internet users probably won't see this post

jaredtking 10y ago
There definitely needs to be more awareness about this. Just from a quick read of the WOT forum it seems most users are completely shocked that their data was being sold, even though this is outlined in the WOT terms of service. Here is what the WOT terms of service say about sharing their users' browsing data: The information we collect is aggregated, non-personal non-identifiable information which may be made available or gathered via the users' use of the WOT Utilities ("Non-Personal Information"). We are not aware of the identity of the user from which the Non-Personal Information is collected. We may disclose or share this information with third parties as specified below and solely if applicable. We collect the following Non-Personal Information from you when you install or use the Product or use the WOT Platform: Your Internet Protocol Address; Your geographic location (e.g., France, Canada, etc.); The type of device, operating system and browsers you use; Date and time stamp; Browsing usage, including visited web pages, clickstream data or web address accessed; Browser identifier and user ID;
- whyever 10y ago
  Calling it non-identifiable is a lie.
gnicholas 10y ago
Yeah, fortunately once this is yanked from the Mozilla store their install rate will drop dramatically. Installing a non-verified extension triggers tons of warnings, and eventually it will only be possible by editing about:config. You're absolutely right that this needs to be shared out. Many of the things we do in apps on mobile we do via web browsers on a computer. This means that the browser is a single point of convergence for tons of data, and browser plugins can capture this data and monetize it. While it may be possible to monetize purely in an anonymized way (which might not bother some users), some plugins do use individual data to target ads. I've been asked to insert tracking code into my startup's browser plugin (with a lowly 75k users) for this purpose, and the $$$ was tempting. It would have paid more in a year than we've made off of all our individual paid accounts—plus we wouldn't have had to build a payment infrastructure. We're very pro-privacy, so it was a definite "no" for us, but I can see how other folks might have gone for it. It's pretty ironic that a company with a name like "Web of Trust" ended up going this route. Hopefully they can pull themselves back from the dark side and earn back their customers' trust.
- angry-hacker 10y ago
  Can you give us the range of $$$ offered for that kind of user amount? Out of Morbid Curiosity.
  - gnicholas 10y ago
    IIRC, it was $50k/yr. They would have started out much lower, and then ramped up after validating that our users are not bots.

jaredtking 10y ago

There definitely needs to be more awareness about this. Just from a quick read of the WOT forum it seems most users are completely shocked that their data was being sold, even though this is outlined in the WOT terms of service. Here is what the WOT terms of service say about sharing their users' browsing data: The information we collect is aggregated, non-personal non-identifiable information which may be made available or gathered via the users' use of the WOT Utilities ("Non-Personal Information"). We are not aware of the identity of the user from which the Non-Personal Information is collected. We may disclose or share this information with third parties as specified below and solely if applicable. We collect the following Non-Personal Information from you when you install or use the Product or use the WOT Platform: Your Internet Protocol Address; Your geographic location (e.g., France, Canada, etc.); The type of device, operating system and browsers you use; Date and time stamp; Browsing usage, including visited web pages, clickstream data or web address accessed; Browser identifier and user ID;

whyever 10y ago
Calling it non-identifiable is a lie.

gnicholas 10y ago

Yeah, fortunately once this is yanked from the Mozilla store their install rate will drop dramatically. Installing a non-verified extension triggers tons of warnings, and eventually it will only be possible by editing about:config. You're absolutely right that this needs to be shared out. Many of the things we do in apps on mobile we do via web browsers on a computer. This means that the browser is a single point of convergence for tons of data, and browser plugins can capture this data and monetize it. While it may be possible to monetize purely in an anonymized way (which might not bother some users), some plugins do use individual data to target ads. I've been asked to insert tracking code into my startup's browser plugin (with a lowly 75k users) for this purpose, and the $$$ was tempting. It would have paid more in a year than we've made off of all our individual paid accounts—plus we wouldn't have had to build a payment infrastructure. We're very pro-privacy, so it was a definite "no" for us, but I can see how other folks might have gone for it. It's pretty ironic that a company with a name like "Web of Trust" ended up going this route. Hopefully they can pull themselves back from the dark side and earn back their customers' trust.

angry-hacker 10y ago
Can you give us the range of $$$ offered for that kind of user amount? Out of Morbid Curiosity.
- gnicholas 10y ago
  IIRC, it was $50k/yr. They would have started out much lower, and then ramped up after validating that our users are not bots.