3 ms·
This was anonymized data, but of course you de-anonymize a lot of it if you get raw data and you have reasons to put effort into it (e.g. you can find the accou
by Daniel_sk 7y ago
This was anonymized data, but of course you de-anonymize a lot of it if you get raw data and you have reasons to put effort into it (e.g. you can find the account ID based on the exact purchase time and then follow his journey because of an unique anonymous ID). I don't think the intent was to spy on individuals, but it's not easy (or possible?) to truly anonymize data without loosing 99% of the information value.
- saiya-jin 7y agoThe whole premise is ridiculously bad - this is done by antivirus software. It doesn't matter how the data is handled, the act of losing trust is in action itself. Its like adware-blocker would install its own adware upon removal of all the others. But it would be a 'good' one ie for 'optimizing internet connection' or similar bullshit. Trust is a finicky issue - long time to build, can be lost with 1 mistake. This event can kill Avast company in long term. Stupid, stupid move from owners, only explainable by greed, and not really justifiable.
- Daniel_sk 7y agoYes, in this case it's a very bad decision. I guess it made business sense if you want to have a free-tier of AV for tens or hundreds of millions of users - you need to somehow generate the money, but it's a ticking bomb.