This is clickbait. The authors argument is that the extension has enough privileges to track you, not that it actually does.
For example, uBlock Origin has similar privileges but I doubt the author would bat an eye.
EDIT: I take back my comment :)
For example, uBlock Origin has similar privileges but I doubt the author would bat an eye.
EDIT: I take back my comment :)
I will copy/paste it for you.
"You could also read the article before commenting. It’s one thing when an extension could do something but its code can be inspected to verify that it doesn’t. It’s an entirely different thing if it delegates its privileges to a web service that could do anything and that nobody can inspect.
Note: I’m the author of this article. "
However I still think the title could be better. There are lots of things that applications "can" do. I put more trust into random applications that run on my system.
Now shipping a malicious application is always a risk. This application release is evidence of misbehavior, should someone choose to analyze it. This risk is almost non-existent with dynamic web applications. It would have to be the one targeted user who analyzes megabytes of code.
To sum up: there is a good reason why websites are sandboxed and don’t get any access to your system.
Note: I am the author of this article.
Would it be more accurate then to say it potentially lets Amazon track you? Without the word "potentially," or similar, it makes it sound like they are in fact doing it when you just said it "could."
In my opinion though, "could" is so close to "potentially" in definition that it seems rather pedantic to hinge the entire article and its conclusions on that single choice of word.
Actual Title: How Amazon Assistant lets Amazon track your every move on the web
HN Title: Amazon Assistant lets Amazon track your every move on the web
I should have been more specific.
Note: I am the author of this article.