Krusty, I know this. lol! And what else? I'm gonna ask them, OK? At least it'll be a refreshing change from all the stuff they hear about the latest version woes. Besides, it's turning out to be an intriguing topic after all and I'm tired of software companies saying something and there's more they're not saying. It doesn't hurt to ask.
Yes, mood. But that's not the issue. The issue is what Malwarebytes is doing, if anything, with user information under the guise of its copyright policy. It's an avenue to explore, maybe because I have nothing better to do right now. Privacy leaks are rampant--remember WebOfTrust? I personally don't care because I don't use MB. It's more the principle of the thing.
Right. And in https://www.malwarebytes.com/privacy/ there is the language: "We may disclose PII to government agencies, law enforcement officials, and private parties as we, in our sole discretion, believe necessary ... to prevent or stop activity we consider to be illegal or unethical." That goes a lot farther than refusing to provide help on the forum.
Indeed, that goes a lot farther. Btw. about the issue in the MB-forum: "Your topic has been referred to Malwarebytes' upper management."
Malwarebytes isn't alone with the "software police patrol" attitude: https://www.eset.com/us/privacy/
OK, so the idea is whether security software and more forensic software like Farbar can be used as instruments of telemetry without the user's knowledge, and for what purposes. You wonder about the less publicly appealing ideas, like getting a bounty for every disclosure, in addition to the more publicly appealing morality and uploading the laws. The mind-numbing legalese and vague terminology in the wall-o'-texts, aka Terms of Service/various policies, are the perfect screens.
But hey, none of them are likely as bad as Shrive https://www.theatlantic.com/enterta...hree-review-shut-up-and-dance-netflix/504929/
It leaves me wondering just how intrusive their detecting activities are and what information they are collating.
Did MBAM ever issue compensation to the 1000's of home and business users that had their systems wiped out by MBAM 1.75 in 2013? https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/125127-the-newest-update-that-just-downloaded-broke-hard/
Their answers make sense. I was already 99% sure they wouldn't be scanning systems for pirated software, and then taking further action. Not that I use pirated software myself or condone piracy, but the idea seemed a bit ridiculous.
Have to admit, a very readable and understandable response. My curiosity is satisfied, hopefully others' also. Edit: Just a little too much PR at the end.
@plat1098 -- Congratulations on getting a substantive response It's reassuring to see this: "It really all comes down to integrity. We believe that our users'/customers' privacy is a sacred thing to be guarded ferociously against anyone who might attempt to exploit, harass or otherwise abuse any of our users/customers and their private information." But https://www.malwarebytes.com/privacy/ still includes this: "We may disclose PII to government agencies, law enforcement officials, and private parties as we, in our sole discretion, believe necessary: (1) to satisfy or comply with any applicable law, regulation or legal process; (2) to respond to lawful requests, including subpoenas, warrants or court orders; (3) to protect our property, rights and safety and the rights, property and safety of third parties or the public in general; and (4) to prevent or stop activity we consider to be illegal or unethical." So it's arguable that exile360's responses gloss over some exceptions to "privacy is a sacred thing to be guarded ferociously". Some firms say explicitly in their policies that they'll never share PII with third parties. But maybe they're also glossing over exceptions. It's the same issue that we deal with about Microsoft, Google, VPN providers, etc. Knowing who to trust, and how far, is entirely nontrivial.
Actually, I stopped at the first sentence: "I'll answer the questions I can to the best of my ability based on what I know." Yes, there was gloss and a whopper of public relations. But the answer was very good and had the strong ring of sincerity, because exile360 believes in these principles, not me or anyone else. Clearly I didn't pursue the matter thoroughly because I'm a novice and there's an intuition that there are barriers to these matters, particularly when it concerns the ear of the government. Is Malwarebytes gonna spill it on a public forum? Therefore, if anyone is seriously and strongly inclined to pursue the matter, please add to that thread. But I'm good.
Right. Who is exile360, anyway? Employee or volunteer? And anyway, I'd say that the privacy policy trumps forum comments.
Slight deviation but still of interest (last post more so than the others) https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/188998-new-tostou-aka-guidelines/#comment-1065200
Ironic that a software that is supposed to protect you from spyware appears to be spyware itself...Given the V3 fiasco I think I'll use ZAM.
I moved to ZAM (well, ZAL) months ago when the MBAM services didn't start with Windows. No idea if this is still a thing or not, because I've been more than happy with Zemana. Considering I have a free lifetime license, and a paid lifetime to MBAM, maybe I'll revisit when they get their crap together.
Not new, they have been at this for a while, Windows 10 is joining in too, I love it, I think software theft stunts the growth of a very important sector. More power to em'
