When "the browser is the OS", scanning that is a pretty big chunk of "your computer".

but the language of "your computer" implies files on your computer, as it would be what people commonly call it. Merely just the extension is not enough.

If it has the ability to scan your bookmarks, or visited site history, that would lend more credence to using the term "computer".

The title ought to have said "linkedIn illegally scans your browser", and that would make clear what is being done without being sensationalist.

▲

pqtyw 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Extensions are files installed on your computer, though?

▲

haswell 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So are fonts. But running Window.queryLocalFonts() is not equivalent to “illegally searching your computer”.

I’m not defending the act of scanning for these extensions, and I’m of the opinion that such an API shouldn’t even exist, but just pointing out that there are perfectly legitimate APIs that reveal information that could be framed as “files installed on your computer” that are clearly not “searching your computer” like the title implies.

▲

chii 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

it doesn't have to be files. it could be in memory on the browser. Extensions don't imply files for anyone but the most technical of conversations. Certainly not to the laymen.

Having sensationalist titles should be called out at every opportunity.

	▲	blenderob 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> it doesn't have to be files. it could be in memory on the browser. How'd that work? If it's in memory, the extensions would vanish everytime I shutdown Chrome? I'll have to reinstall all my extensions again everytime I restart Chrome? Have you seen any browser that keeps extension in memory? Where they ask the user to reinstall their extensions everytime they start the browser?

▲

voganmother42 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Reminds me of https://xkcd.com/1200/

	▲	Dylan16807 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But it's not getting access to real user data, just a partial list of things that are installed.

▲

blenderob 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> but the language of "your computer" implies files on your computer, as it would be what people commonly call it. Merely just the extension is not enough.

But the language of "your computer" also implies software on your computer including but not limited to Chrome extensions.

	▲	ImPostingOnHN 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It implies more than just the browser, which is likely why it was used for the post title. If it is exclusively limited to the browser, then "scans your browser" is more correct, and doesn't mislead the reader into thinking something is happening which isn't commonplace on the internet.

▲

justonceokay 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Are you defending LinkedIn’s behavior right now or are you just happy to be more technically correct (the best kind of correct!) than those around you? Trying to understand the angle

▲

compiler-guy 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Something may be bad, but accurately describing why it is bad significantly elevates the discourse.

Eg, someone could use the phrase "Won't someone think of the children?" to describe a legitimately bad thing like bank fraud, but the solutions that flow from the problem that "children are in danger" are significantly different from the solutions that flow from "phishing attacks are rampant".

The two issues in this case aren't quite as different as child-endangerment and bank fraud. But if the problem was as the original title describes, the solution is quite different (better sandboxing) than what the actual solution is. Which I don't know, but better sandboxing ain't it.

▲

justonceokay 4 hours ago | parent [-]

So technically correct. Got it

▲

ImPostingOnHN 4 hours ago | parent [-]

attacking people for having more nuance and accuracy than you have is how polarization and tribal epistemology happens

'ignore the facts! ENEMY!!!' generally doesn't end well for anybody

	▲	cindyllm 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

ImPostingOnHN 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The browser fingerprinting described is ubiquitous on the internet, used by players large and small. There are even libraries to do this.

Like OP, I don't consider behavior confined to the browser to be my computer. "Scans your browser" is both technically correct and less misleading. "Scans your computer" was chosen instead, to get more clicks.

▲

latkin 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And I spend a lot of my time at home on my computer. The article should have said LinkedIn is searching my house.

▲

autoexec 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It looks like it's also gathering info on your OS and graphics card which seems very much "your computer"

▲

taneq 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is just the next iteration of the issues with Linux file permissions, where the original threat model was “the computer is used by many users who need protection from each other”, and which no longer makes much sense in a world of “the computer is used by one or more users who need protection from each other and also from the huge amounts of potentially malicious remote code they constantly execute”.