Espionage allegation: LinkedIn secretly scans browser extensions
The career network LinkedIn, which belongs to Microsoft, is confronted with legal consequences. The background is the practice of searching users’ web browsers for installed extensions. That raises questions.
Secret browser scans
Two class action lawsuits were recently filed in a U.S. District Court in California. The plaintiffs accuse the platform of collecting extensive data without sufficient consent. When you access the website, JavaScript carries out a scan in the background. Google Chrome and browsers based on it such as Microsoft Edge are particularly affected. The system searches for thousands of specific add-ons, including tools from competitors, tools for people with disabilities, and filters for religious and political content. The code is deeply integrated into the architecture of the site.
Like the magazine ArsTechnica reported, the lawsuits are based on a report by German advocacy group Fairlinked. The group describes the procedure as a major espionage operation. Fairlinked is based on people who run the Estonian software company Teamfluence. Teamfluence had already unsuccessfully sued LinkedIn in Munich in January because the collection of such data is not fundamentally prohibited under European law, provided there is a legitimate interest. LinkedIn does not deny the scans, but points to security reasons. The company says it only looks for extensions that illegally access user data and violate the terms of use. This serves the stability of the site and the protection of the members. According to official information, sensitive information about users would not be derived from the data. The platform is used by millions of professionals worldwide every month.
Conflict over consent
The legal core of the conflict is the question of transparency. LinkedIn’s privacy policy mentions the collection of information via the web browser and add-ons. However, the plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that an average user would not consent to such extensive monitoring because of the vague wording. Collecting such data violates fundamental principles of privacy. California is considered a pioneer in strict data protection laws in the USA.
In addition, the plaintiffs accuse the network of passing on findings to third parties. The evaluation of the installed software in conjunction with professional profile data technically enables the creation of technology profiles for entire companies. According to court documents, the lawyers criticize that the platform can use the information for targeted advertising. A ruling from California courts is expected in the coming months.
