# FYI - Regarding AVG/Avast AV and their related products.



## WndrWmn

FYI - Regarding AVG/Avast AV and their related products. The company was recently caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They were caught tracking & selling customers' information and activity all over the internet. Yes, they have closed down that division of their business but too little too late - cat is out of the bag already, horse has left the barn etc... They have already been doing the tracking and selling for a long time already.

I follow a good and knowledgeable tech guy on YT and he put together a video detailing their nefarious activity..... 



That video is worth watching and his channel is worth following. He live streams builds frequently and answers questions.

Good Luck......

Wonder Woman


----------



## Stancestans

WndrWmn said:


> FYI - Regarding AVG/Avast AV and their related products. The company was recently caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They were caught tracking & selling customers' information and activity all over the internet. Yes, they have closed down that division of their business but too little too late - cat is out of the bag already, horse has left the barn etc... They have already been doing the tracking and selling for a long time already.
> 
> I follow a good and knowledgeable tech guy on YT and he put together a video detailing their nefarious activity..... Carey Holzman AVG/Avast Video
> That video is worth watching and his channel is worth following. He live streams builds frequently and answers questions.
> 
> Good Luck......
> 
> Wonder Woman


How about reading and understanding for yourself the source reports. Here's a start: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qjdkq7/avast-antivirus-sells-user-browsing-data-investigation

https://www.pcmag.com/news/the-cost-of-avasts-free-antivirus-companies-can-spy-on-your-clicks

I don't condone this data collection culture being perpetrated by software giants, but come on, folks will cry foul after consenting to data collection just because this data is being monetised and the source of this data (users) are not getting a share of the cash prize! Avast closing down Jumpshot is just a business move, an attempt to win back people's trust, because bad press and alarmist knee-jerk influencer reactions can deal a heavy blow on its business, regardless of how transparent (or not) they were regarding this practice. Name one software giant that hasn't been doing this in one way or another? Microsoft? Google? Wow, look at that! They themselves are clients of Jumpshot, and they too have massive "anonymized" data in their banks! Let's not even start with social media, governments, ISPs...


----------



## WndrWmn

I don’t know if you watched the video I posted but the gentleman actually references that article in his video it is one of his main comments. No need to shoot the messenger. This is a day and age or most of the companies out there are corrupt and sell this information freely because let’s face it who is going to watch them and force them to stop? I additionally pose the question even when they do a mea culpa a claim that they are stopping the practice who has the money to make sure they actually are stopping the process of tracking and selling information as they claim instead of lying and continuing the practice?

I got a notification of an update on the original topic and when I looked back I saw my post was gone from that topic. Was it removed and segregated from that posting simply because it wasn’t liked? If that’s the case totally wrong thing to do. Passing along information doesn’t hurt it just gives people something additional to think about and make up their own minds.


----------



## Stancestans

WndrWmn said:


> I don’t know if you watched the video I posted but the gentleman actually references that article in his video it is one of his main comments. No need to shoot the messenger. This is a day and age or most of the companies out there are corrupt and sell this information freely because let’s face it who is going to watch them and force them to stop? I additionally pose the question even when they do a mea culpa a claim that they are stopping the practice who has the money to make sure they actually are stopping the process of tracking and selling information as they claim instead of lying and continuing the practice?
> 
> I got a notification of an update on the original topic and when I looked back I saw my post was gone from that topic. Was it removed and segregated from that posting simply because it wasn’t liked? If that’s the case totally wrong thing to do. Passing along information doesn’t hurt it just gives people something additional to think about and make up their own minds.


Your post was reported for being out of place in that thread, so I moved it to its own thread in a befitting sub-forum (Computer Security News). You should be happier I did so, because the alternative was to just delete and forget it, but now you get to discuss the subject without hijacking someone else's thread. We don't keep posts because we like or dislike them. We keep posts that comply with forum rules and etiquette, and it's normal practice to move misplaced posts as deemed appropriate. It's called moderation, not shooting the messenger, so don't take it personally! Feel free to pass along any relevant information as regards this subject within this thread. If you want the OP of the other thread to also have a look at this, feel free to post them a link to this thread/discussion. I'm sure they too would appreciate it if their thread wasn't flooded with side-thoughts.


----------



## WndrWmn

Actually that makes perfect sense I did not know that could be done. We live in an unfortunate world sadly. Thank you for taking that very proactive option of moving my comment to a more appropriate location. I knew there was a reason I like this forum!


----------



## Gary R

A few things to think about when choosing an AV ... https://restoreprivacy.com/antivirus-privacy/


----------



## tristar

My only recommendation, read the License agreement thoroughly, they've probably mentioned this in their fine print somewhere (usually referred to 3rd party service providers or a similar generic name) and if it's there, decline it, and forget about the software.


----------



## Gary R

Eulalyser ... https://www.brightfort.com/eulalyzer.html ... used to be a useful aid for getting through the mound of legal jargon found in most EULAs (end user license agreements).

Not used it for a while, so can't say whether it's still worth using.


----------



## Stancestans

tristar said:


> My only recommendation, read the License agreement thoroughly, they've probably mentioned this in their fine print somewhere (usually referred to 3rd party service providers or a similar generic name) and if it's there, decline it, and forget about the software.


Even without reading the eula, there always was a setting under a section labelled "privacy" where you could opt out of the data sharing. Initially, you would get a screen during registration of the free version, informing you of the data collection and how to disable/opt out of it (using that option under privacy settings). The same option was available under the settings of the browser security add-on. They just didn't ask/prompt during the installation process like they apparently do now (it's been a while since I installed Avast on any PC). I'm sure the eula also indicated this, but who cares, people just want to get pissed because money was made from their data, not because the data was collected in the first place. What worries me more is that there are a lot of folks who have no idea what they're getting into due to their own blissful ignorance. Reminds me of some antivax mom who was ranting about the chemicals (sodium chloride) we're getting fed by "big pharma" not knowing it was common table salt! This was after someone posted a list of ingredients in tomato sauce, but didn't tell her right away!


----------



## Gary R

> ... people just want to get pissed because money was made from their data, not because the data was collected in the first place.


Whilst I'm sure that's correct for some complainants, I expect that it's not the case for many.

Data collection these days is fairly ubiquitous, and much of it is done for product development, and that's a good thing. 

However, a great deal of it is not being collected for good reasons, it's being collected so that you can be targetted with ever more personal Ads, and a lot of people object to their privacy being invaded for that purpose.

Now you could say that anyone installing a "free" product should be aware that the price for it is the sacrifice of their privacy, but you could equally say that this should be made more clearly to them when they are installing the program.

For what it's worth, I'm of the opinion that data collection has got out of control, and needs to be a great deal more regulated than it is at present, at the very least it should be mandatory for programs and sites to make much clearer exactly what data they collect, and exactly who they share it with, and not be allowed to use the sorts of generalised terms that they do at present.

All data collection should also be opt-in and not opt-out.


----------



## Stancestans

Gary R said:


> this should be made more clearly to them when they are installing the program.
> 
> data collection has got out of control, and needs to be a great deal more regulated than it is at present, at the very least it should be mandatory for programs and sites to make much clearer exactly what data they collect, and exactly who they share it with, and not be allowed to use the sorts of generalised terms that they do at present.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## britechguy

Gary R said:


> For what it's worth, I'm of the opinion that data collection has got out of control, and needs to be a great deal more regulated than it is at present, at the very least it should be mandatory for programs and sites to make much clearer exactly what data they collect, and exactly who they share it with, and not be allowed to use the sorts of generalised terms that they do at present.


You and me both. There is a knee-jerk reaction against "regulation" these days after almost 50 years of constant cries of "regulation is bad!!" No, it isn't, or at least it needn't be.

If there isn't a law or regulation against it, it's permissible. That's a thought that never crosses most people's minds, and if they give that a few seconds thought and let it sink in . . .



> All data collection should also be opt-in and not opt-out.


I think that depends entirely on purpose. I have no problem with system health telemetry used by OSes (not just Windows, many Linux distros use it to and I believe so does OSX) being opt-out. It's been a godsend, and it's certainly not "spying" in any meaningful sense of that word. It makes our collective lives better without sacrificing much of anything.

Data collection for any directly monetary purpose or sale of any kind should absolutely be opt-in.


----------



## Stancestans

> Data collection for any directly monetary purpose or sale of any kind should absolutely be opt-in.


Yeah. I would love to see who would opt in for, "hey, we would like to record your every move online and sell it..."


----------



## britechguy

Stancestans said:


> Yeah. I would love to see who would opt in for, "hey, we would like to record your every move online and sell it..."


P.T. Barnum was not wrong, unfortunately.

It's also shocking just how much privacy, money, whatever that many people are willing to sacrifice for convenience, and often very minimal increases in same.


----------



## Stancestans

When it comes to bundleware, adware, data collection for whatever reason and such shady stuff, I always assume the default setting is what the software maker would love it to be.


----------



## Gary R

Stancestans said:


> Yeah. I would love to see who would opt in for, "hey, we would like to record your every move online and sell it..."


Which of course is not what they'd do.

If data collected for monetary gain had to be opt-in, whilst telemetry data could be opt-out, I suspect that what would happen, would be that they "reclassify" all the data they collect as telemetry data.

That's why I think that all data collection should be opt-in.

I'm all in favour of people contributing telemetry data, it's essential for product development, but if overall data collection is ever going to be restricted, then what is, and what is not, telemetry data, needs to be quite strictly defined, and until it is, then it too should be opt-in.


----------



## tristar

Gary R said:


> Which of course is not what they'd do.
> 
> If data collected for monetary gain had to be opt-in, whilst telemetry data could be opt-out, I suspect that what would happen, would be that they "reclassify" all the data they collect as telemetry data.
> 
> That's why I think that all data collection should be opt-in.
> 
> I'm all in favour of people contributing telemetry data, it's essential for product development, but if overall data collection is ever going to be restricted, then what is, and what is not, telemetry data, needs to be quite strictly defined, and until it is, then it too should be opt-in.


As long as the telemetry data is anonymized...


----------



## Stancestans

tristar said:


> As long as the telemetry data is anonymized...


Well, a big part of the debate is fuelled by disbelief/skepticism in "anonymization".


----------



## Gary R

Stancestans said:


> Well, a big part of the debate is fuelled by disbelief/skepticism in "anonymization".


Exactly.

Everyone claims that the data they collect is anonymous, but of course there's no real definition for what anonymous really means, nor how realistic any claims of anonymity that a data collector makes can actually be.

Taken in isolation, their claims may be true, however so called anonymous data can be collected from multiple sources and cross referenced to make things a lot less anonymous, and some people (particularly advertisers) have a vested interest in doing just that.


----------



## pcexpertq8

I see this post is just for gathering more views to this video.


----------



## Pursya

britechguy said:


> P.T. Barnum was not wrong, unfortunately.
> 
> It's also shocking just how much privacy, money, whatever that many people are willing to sacrifice for convenience, and often very minimal increases in same.


This is so true.
Here we have a big supermarket chain that has a "loyalty" card. Swipe it at purchase and you get "rewarded". Which is very little reward for the information you have handed over.
It now appears that even if you do not swipe the loyalty card, but pay with a credit/debit card that you have used before, the supermarket automatically links that card to you!
So, did anyone know they were giving permission to the supermarket to record, keep and link your card?
And I wonder if anyone knows they have given permission for that data to be used (sold for profit) by the supermarket however it sees fit?
All to get a dollar off at the register. (Don't mention that they've already got that dollar and more back in the items you purchased)


----------



## jonnyb

While we are talking about data collection, does Windows 10 collect data or Microsoft with Windows 10? I was wondering because I was looking thru the Privacy settings in Settings a there is a lot of things that are turned on. Does any turn these off? I did mine. Lemme know thoughts about this please. May others benefit from the answer too.
Thanks


----------



## Corday

The more they know about you, the more they can help help you. They can also help themselves to the contents of your wallet.


----------



## 9655-Duncan

Sounds like nothing can be stored online securely. I wouldn't be surprised if such situation had happed with some small company (scam-newbies). But with such big ones... I'm disappointed. It sounds like a big scandal tho.


----------



## Gary R

Depends on what you mean by securely, and secure from who.

There's no denying that online backups are convenient, and have several advantages over offline ones, however nothing that is online is ever going to be as secure as something that isn't.

Personally, if I were to store sensitive data online, then even if that data was encrypted during the storage process, I would still only upload it to the online storage server after I had first encrypted it myself, using a separate encryption program.

That would secure the actual data from being read by the storage company, or from anyone being able to access the decryption key to your data, from the storage server, since your data has been double encrypted, and the key to the second decryption can only be found on your machine.

What that would not do of course, is secure the metadata that the storage company would collect about you, which is often more valuable to some people than the data that you're storing.


----------



## Stancestans

9655-Duncan said:


> Sounds like nothing can be stored online securely. I wouldn't be surprised if such situation had happed with some small company (scam-newbies). But with such big ones... I'm disappointed. It sounds like a big scandal tho.


Not as big a scandal as you think. Giant industry players have been at it for a long time now.


----------

