7 ms·

Norton has outright been a malware company for a long time I'd love to see the feds arrest a few people there and destroy the company. Just remember. Don't ev

Norton has outright been a malware company for a long time I'd love to see the feds arrest a few people there and destroy the company. Just remember. Don't ever hire someone with recent Norton experience I their resume. I'd sooner fill that gap in with the explanation that I was selling fentanyl laced products on the dark web

notyourwork 5y ago
Anecdotal, a few years back I had the opportunity to interview an engineer. Their background was in web advertising. Regardless of what I feel about ads on the internet, the candidates technical background with respect to how they handle iframes inside of iframes many levels deep and how they inject code into the page was actually quite a fascinating conversation on the technical merit of it all.
wizzwizz4 5y ago
I don't know – there are acceptable (if rare) reasons to work on Norton, but I can't think of any reason that selling fentanyl-laced products would be okay.
anormalpapier 5y ago
> Don't ever hire someone with recent Norton experience I their resume. This is pretty ridiculous. I worked there and and there is much more going on internally than writing malware-like software. By the time I left they still had pretty decent engineers just trying to find a job in a better company, like me. These sort of decisions don't come from Software Engineers and management there is known to be pretty shitty. Also, it's not like they maliciously inserted this thing to mine crypto for Norton itself. Whatever your computer mines is yours (still a bad idea though IMO) https://community.norton.com/en/blogs/product-service-announcements/introducing-norton-crypto https://community.norton.com/en/blogs/product-service-announ...
- Barrin92 5y ago
  >and there is much more going on internally than writing malware-like software that sentence doesn't exactly inspire confidence lol. So you're saying people are aware of the fact that they're partially writing malware like software and that's.. accepted? That's like an accounting firm saying "don't judge us like that, there's much more going on here than the money laundering"
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
  > it's not like they maliciously inserted this thing to mine crypto for Norton itself. Whatever your computer mines is yours It says you're joined to a mining pool. Is this a Norton 360-only mining pool? If so, I'm guessing they have their own hardware participating in the pool as well. And if that's the case, you're helping them mine for blocks just as much as you're helping yourself. But they don't say that anywhere so who knows. edit: and it also appears that they're taking 15% of whatever you mine. So they've apparently: * Set up a Norton-only pool * Joined all their customers computers to it * Collect 360 subscription fees to participate * Collect 15% of everything their customers mine * Participate in the pool themselves, further benefiting from their customers mining activity And what happens to the unclaimed/unused wallets that they're holding for their oblivious customers in "the cloud"? If I cared enough about this to read the fine print I bet I'll find that they're reserving the right to empty those after a certain period of inactivity.
  - duskwuff 5y ago
    > And what happens to the unclaimed/unused wallets that they're holding for their oblivious customers in "the cloud"? For that matter: what happens when Norton gets hacked and loses the cryptocurrency they've been holding for their users?
  - random314 5y ago
    And who pays the customers electricity bill? They are simply stealing your electricity.
    - yosito 5y ago
      Not just your electricity, but also your processor time, which you likely intended to use for something else.
    - TingPing 5y ago
      The ethereum would pay for it, if the user knew how to actually cash out.
      - 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kjaftaedi 5y ago
  >Also, it's not like they maliciously inserted this thing to mine crypto for Norton itself. No, but it is still malicious in the sense that it: (1) does not inform the user or ask for consent (2) seemingly does not offer an option to disable it While I want to apply Occam's razor here, you'd have to assume all of the people that worked on this were negligent or unqualified... when sadly the more likely scenario is that these decisions were most likely intentional.
  - perennate 5y ago
    > (1) does not inform the user or ask for consent > (2) seemingly does not offer an option to disable it Where do you see this? As far as I can tell, it is off by default, and the user must explicitly enable it (consent) to use the miner. See e.g. https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v138388461 https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v... which mentions a License and Services Agreement that must be accepted before the miner can be used at all, and clearly says the mining status can be toggled between Active and Paused.
    - kjaftaedi 5y ago
      I got the information from the thread linked in the headline. (scroll to their follow up posts) I don't have Norton, so I am unable to test this myself.
- Ansil849 5y ago
  > These sort of decisions don't come from Software Engineers and management there is known to be pretty shitty. No, but the decision to work and continue working there does.
  - jodrellblank 5y ago
    So you're saying you would trust this hypothetical ex-Norton engineer resume more, because they made the decision not to continue working there?
    - Ansil849 5y ago
      I'm saying no such thing. What I am saying is that I find this 'we're just code monkeys, we don't enact policy' retort I see so frequently here incredibly annoying, because it acts like programmers are not human beings with agency in a market with typically extreme mobility.
      - jodrellblank 5y ago
        If they're trying to leave and can't leave because nobody will hire them because they work(ed) somewhere bad (that's the original comment in this thread; never trusting a Norton employee's resume) and you're also criticising them for "choosing" to continue working there, what chance does that give them? That isn't having agency in a market. If "the decision to work and continue working there" is a bad one, that makes the decision to leave a better decision, yes? And the person who makes such a decision, a better person. And if you want to hire people who have agency and act with integrity, someone who left Norton is a slightly higher signal than someone who never heard of Norton, isn't it?
        Stevvo 5y ago
        parent comment is once again saying no such thing. The root comment of this thread are not the words of that comment.
        5y ago
chickenpotpie 5y ago
> Just remember. Don't ever hire someone with recent Norton experience I their resume Toxic hiring mentality. Unless someone is very high up, it’s just a job to them and they’re just trying to feed their families.
- voakbasda 5y ago
  Yup, they were just following orders. Definitely not responsible for their own decisions and actions /s
  - jabej 5y ago
    That was nothing but the result of the winning side wanting someone to pay for what the losers did to them. It never made sense.
  - jrockway 5y ago
    "Just following orders" is a loaded expression. You're implying that they're committing genocide, when really all they're doing is helping some company make a product you don't think is particularly good. It's definitely not worth such harsh words.
    - RansomStark 5y ago
      I've never understood this argument. It is clear that nobody is implying a genocide is underway, they are simply alluding to an extreme example of ignoring or justifying negative actions, to show that each of us has agency and should be held to account for their actions. I always think it's an interesting juxtaposition because although the actions (in this case working for an AV company) are always so far removed from the extreme example, so too are the repercussions. The "just following orders" soldier, had he refused to carry out his orders, or attempted to flee, would have been shot in the back for desertion. The penalty for following orders, or not following orders, is the same: death (at least in the canonical example). Whereas with the situation being discussed here, it results in what? Maybe holding out for another job. In the extreme we expect people to pay the ultimate price to prevent atrocities, which should serve to remind us that, in the everyday, we should engage our moral compass, endure a small hardship, and through that hardship, prevent a small amount injury from being inflicted on the world.
jjulius 5y ago
>Just remember. Don't ever hire someone with recent Norton experience I their resume. I completely understand this sentiment and why you're approaching it this way, but I have to ask - what if the person with recent Norton experience is trying to get away, or got away, from them because they share your views about Norton? Would you just throw away the resume without a second thought, or would you at least be open to hearing about their thoughts working there?
- _2d30 5y ago
  People who say these things are primarily looking for reasons to moralize and gatekeep. It's not about actually achieving a just outcome.
  - Stevvo 5y ago
    No, it's about taking responsibility for your own actions and code.
    - jjulius 5y ago
      So, basically... Norton Employee: "I strongly disagree with how Norton operates and the kind of software we are installing. I feel shame. Here's why I would be a strong candidate for your company." You: "I'd rather not even hear about it. Get rekt." ...?
999900000999 5y ago
So a kid who got recruited out of college is somehow a bad person ? No one is forcing you to install this stuff, I think Match is a horrible company which takes advantage of people, facilitates scams, on top of outright fraud . I still recognize skill, if you told me you improved load times on Match.com by 60% I’d be very interested in hiring you. I wouldn’t personally work for any dating app or adult entertainment platform. But I have nothing against those who do.
- int_19h 5y ago
  Being recruited out of college (or not) doesn't really change anything in this equation. If ypu do something, find out that it's bad, and continue doing it anyway, then yes, you're being a bad person.
  - 999900000999 5y ago
    Can you seriously say that everything every company you've ever worked for aligns with your personal morality ? Odds are no, I agree this is a disgusting tactic, but every company does bad things. If you work at say Starbucks, and some of the beans are being produced unethically, you're not a bad person for making lattes.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      No, of course not. Personal responsibility is, well, personal. But even so, I fail to see how being freshly recruited out of college makes any difference.
drdeca 5y ago
If this maxim was universalized, I don't think it would produce the outcomes you desire? At least, not in the short term. This would make it so the people there would be essentially forced to stay there? It would, of course, also provide an incentive against beginning to work there, but, I still think other rules would better further your goals.
danjac 5y ago
There was some comment in Twitter along the lines of "I wouldn't hire anyone who had Coinbase in their resume". You could switch "Coinbase" for Meta, Palantir, Norton, or any other morally questionable company. The fact is though that the easiest way for these companies to go bust is for them to lose all their competent employees. If someone working at Norton can't get a job anywhere else, no matter how good their qualifications, because they're on your blacklist, they're going to stick with Norton. That keeps Norton alive. It's much better to accept that people are fallible, they make mistakes, and sometimes you join a company in good faith only for management to pivot, or the company to get acquired and questionable judgements to be made. It's important that developers and other employees at these companies are given an off-ramp when they decide the paycheck is no longer worth it.

notyourwork 5y ago

Anecdotal, a few years back I had the opportunity to interview an engineer. Their background was in web advertising. Regardless of what I feel about ads on the internet, the candidates technical background with respect to how they handle iframes inside of iframes many levels deep and how they inject code into the page was actually quite a fascinating conversation on the technical merit of it all.

wizzwizz4 5y ago

I don't know – there are acceptable (if rare) reasons to work on Norton, but I can't think of any reason that selling fentanyl-laced products would be okay.

anormalpapier 5y ago

> Don't ever hire someone with recent Norton experience I their resume. This is pretty ridiculous. I worked there and and there is much more going on internally than writing malware-like software. By the time I left they still had pretty decent engineers just trying to find a job in a better company, like me. These sort of decisions don't come from Software Engineers and management there is known to be pretty shitty. Also, it's not like they maliciously inserted this thing to mine crypto for Norton itself. Whatever your computer mines is yours (still a bad idea though IMO) https://community.norton.com/en/blogs/product-service-announcements/introducing-norton-crypto https://community.norton.com/en/blogs/product-service-announ...

Barrin92 5y ago
>and there is much more going on internally than writing malware-like software that sentence doesn't exactly inspire confidence lol. So you're saying people are aware of the fact that they're partially writing malware like software and that's.. accepted? That's like an accounting firm saying "don't judge us like that, there's much more going on here than the money laundering"
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
> it's not like they maliciously inserted this thing to mine crypto for Norton itself. Whatever your computer mines is yours It says you're joined to a mining pool. Is this a Norton 360-only mining pool? If so, I'm guessing they have their own hardware participating in the pool as well. And if that's the case, you're helping them mine for blocks just as much as you're helping yourself. But they don't say that anywhere so who knows. edit: and it also appears that they're taking 15% of whatever you mine. So they've apparently: * Set up a Norton-only pool * Joined all their customers computers to it * Collect 360 subscription fees to participate * Collect 15% of everything their customers mine * Participate in the pool themselves, further benefiting from their customers mining activity And what happens to the unclaimed/unused wallets that they're holding for their oblivious customers in "the cloud"? If I cared enough about this to read the fine print I bet I'll find that they're reserving the right to empty those after a certain period of inactivity.
- duskwuff 5y ago
  > And what happens to the unclaimed/unused wallets that they're holding for their oblivious customers in "the cloud"? For that matter: what happens when Norton gets hacked and loses the cryptocurrency they've been holding for their users?
- random314 5y ago
  And who pays the customers electricity bill? They are simply stealing your electricity.
  - yosito 5y ago
    Not just your electricity, but also your processor time, which you likely intended to use for something else.
  - TingPing 5y ago
    The ethereum would pay for it, if the user knew how to actually cash out.
    - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kjaftaedi 5y ago
>Also, it's not like they maliciously inserted this thing to mine crypto for Norton itself. No, but it is still malicious in the sense that it: (1) does not inform the user or ask for consent (2) seemingly does not offer an option to disable it While I want to apply Occam's razor here, you'd have to assume all of the people that worked on this were negligent or unqualified... when sadly the more likely scenario is that these decisions were most likely intentional.
- perennate 5y ago
  > (1) does not inform the user or ask for consent > (2) seemingly does not offer an option to disable it Where do you see this? As far as I can tell, it is off by default, and the user must explicitly enable it (consent) to use the miner. See e.g. https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v138388461 https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v... which mentions a License and Services Agreement that must be accepted before the miner can be used at all, and clearly says the mining status can be toggled between Active and Paused.
  - kjaftaedi 5y ago
    I got the information from the thread linked in the headline. (scroll to their follow up posts) I don't have Norton, so I am unable to test this myself.
Ansil849 5y ago
> These sort of decisions don't come from Software Engineers and management there is known to be pretty shitty. No, but the decision to work and continue working there does.
- jodrellblank 5y ago
  So you're saying you would trust this hypothetical ex-Norton engineer resume more, because they made the decision not to continue working there?
  - Ansil849 5y ago
    I'm saying no such thing. What I am saying is that I find this 'we're just code monkeys, we don't enact policy' retort I see so frequently here incredibly annoying, because it acts like programmers are not human beings with agency in a market with typically extreme mobility.
    - jodrellblank 5y ago
      If they're trying to leave and can't leave because nobody will hire them because they work(ed) somewhere bad (that's the original comment in this thread; never trusting a Norton employee's resume) and you're also criticising them for "choosing" to continue working there, what chance does that give them? That isn't having agency in a market. If "the decision to work and continue working there" is a bad one, that makes the decision to leave a better decision, yes? And the person who makes such a decision, a better person. And if you want to hire people who have agency and act with integrity, someone who left Norton is a slightly higher signal than someone who never heard of Norton, isn't it?
      - Stevvo 5y ago
        parent comment is once again saying no such thing. The root comment of this thread are not the words of that comment.
        5y ago

chickenpotpie 5y ago

> Just remember. Don't ever hire someone with recent Norton experience I their resume Toxic hiring mentality. Unless someone is very high up, it’s just a job to them and they’re just trying to feed their families.

voakbasda 5y ago
Yup, they were just following orders. Definitely not responsible for their own decisions and actions /s
- jabej 5y ago
  That was nothing but the result of the winning side wanting someone to pay for what the losers did to them. It never made sense.
- jrockway 5y ago
  "Just following orders" is a loaded expression. You're implying that they're committing genocide, when really all they're doing is helping some company make a product you don't think is particularly good. It's definitely not worth such harsh words.
  - RansomStark 5y ago
    I've never understood this argument. It is clear that nobody is implying a genocide is underway, they are simply alluding to an extreme example of ignoring or justifying negative actions, to show that each of us has agency and should be held to account for their actions. I always think it's an interesting juxtaposition because although the actions (in this case working for an AV company) are always so far removed from the extreme example, so too are the repercussions. The "just following orders" soldier, had he refused to carry out his orders, or attempted to flee, would have been shot in the back for desertion. The penalty for following orders, or not following orders, is the same: death (at least in the canonical example). Whereas with the situation being discussed here, it results in what? Maybe holding out for another job. In the extreme we expect people to pay the ultimate price to prevent atrocities, which should serve to remind us that, in the everyday, we should engage our moral compass, endure a small hardship, and through that hardship, prevent a small amount injury from being inflicted on the world.

jjulius 5y ago

>Just remember. Don't ever hire someone with recent Norton experience I their resume. I completely understand this sentiment and why you're approaching it this way, but I have to ask - what if the person with recent Norton experience is trying to get away, or got away, from them because they share your views about Norton? Would you just throw away the resume without a second thought, or would you at least be open to hearing about their thoughts working there?

_2d30 5y ago
People who say these things are primarily looking for reasons to moralize and gatekeep. It's not about actually achieving a just outcome.
- Stevvo 5y ago
  No, it's about taking responsibility for your own actions and code.
  - jjulius 5y ago
    So, basically... Norton Employee: "I strongly disagree with how Norton operates and the kind of software we are installing. I feel shame. Here's why I would be a strong candidate for your company." You: "I'd rather not even hear about it. Get rekt." ...?

999900000999 5y ago

So a kid who got recruited out of college is somehow a bad person ? No one is forcing you to install this stuff, I think Match is a horrible company which takes advantage of people, facilitates scams, on top of outright fraud . I still recognize skill, if you told me you improved load times on Match.com by 60% I’d be very interested in hiring you. I wouldn’t personally work for any dating app or adult entertainment platform. But I have nothing against those who do.

int_19h 5y ago
Being recruited out of college (or not) doesn't really change anything in this equation. If ypu do something, find out that it's bad, and continue doing it anyway, then yes, you're being a bad person.
- 999900000999 5y ago
  Can you seriously say that everything every company you've ever worked for aligns with your personal morality ? Odds are no, I agree this is a disgusting tactic, but every company does bad things. If you work at say Starbucks, and some of the beans are being produced unethically, you're not a bad person for making lattes.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    No, of course not. Personal responsibility is, well, personal. But even so, I fail to see how being freshly recruited out of college makes any difference.

drdeca 5y ago

If this maxim was universalized, I don't think it would produce the outcomes you desire? At least, not in the short term. This would make it so the people there would be essentially forced to stay there? It would, of course, also provide an incentive against beginning to work there, but, I still think other rules would better further your goals.

danjac 5y ago

There was some comment in Twitter along the lines of "I wouldn't hire anyone who had Coinbase in their resume". You could switch "Coinbase" for Meta, Palantir, Norton, or any other morally questionable company. The fact is though that the easiest way for these companies to go bust is for them to lose all their competent employees. If someone working at Norton can't get a job anywhere else, no matter how good their qualifications, because they're on your blacklist, they're going to stick with Norton. That keeps Norton alive. It's much better to accept that people are fallible, they make mistakes, and sometimes you join a company in good faith only for management to pivot, or the company to get acquired and questionable judgements to be made. It's important that developers and other employees at these companies are given an off-ramp when they decide the paycheck is no longer worth it.