[/b]
Agreed Bob
I personally have no problem with the manner and position Avast has taken.
If I did I’d leave. Simple 
Yes, you are correct. It is the end users device(s), decision(s) in the end, but this does not change the fact that, as Rundvleeskroket has stated, this behaviour by Avast is dubious.
If I re-call, didn’t Google try something similar to this a few years ago, resulting in financial penalties?
Transparency please, from all software developers.
Bob, what versione of UI do you have?
Can’t understand why your’s still says “Personal Privacy” after the update.
Are sure the internet connection is fine?? because i just updated 8 of my workplace computers and it was just fine
We do appreciate that the topic of privacy is extremely important so, please, let me elaborate here. I really want people here to understand it.
When it comes to data collected for our own analytical purposes (of Avast product usage) - this is part of End User License Agreement (EULA) you are agreeing to when installing the software. It is the absolute standard and most common legal procedure of giving such consent in the world - there is nothing to be ashamed of from Avast side. The argument about jumping from the bridge does not make sense here, sorry. This (opt-out regime) is the way how such program-usage data sharing consent operates for virtually any software out there and there is absolutely no reason for Avast to differ from such legal standards.
What more - I don’t understand where the accusation about us not asking the consent for data shared with 3rd parties (for our business purposes) comes from. We do explicitly notify every user about data collection (those used for business and marketing purposes - which some users might find way more sensitive then program usage data) right after installation. Actually, in a very open and transparent form that most companies do not. This is the latest iteration of the data sharing consent step right after installation. In various forms, it has existed in Avast for years.
Again - if you opted out of this any time before, we are respecting your very decision even after splitting the consent in settings in this latest version. I consider the fact that we are making privacy settings more granular as yet another step towards transparency - it is definitely for the benefit of users if we do not merge consent for Google Analytics (or such services) with data collection for business purposes, like with Jumpshot.
Agreed, but that’s exactly what you got, so not sure what you’re asking for.
I think “Personal Privacy” settings name should have been retained and not changed to “Data Settings”.
Even the screenshot posted above by @benko refers to “Personal Privacy”, not “Data”.
I don’t like having to repeat myself so please read this very carefully; before installing this version of Avast Free there were two checkboxes. Both unchecked because I have opted out. Then, after updating to this new Avast Free, there are three checkboxes. The new third checkbox was checked by default. And no screen appeared asking me what data, if any, I would like to share. So stop lying.
Is Multi-Device supposed to show under my subscriptions in the GUI? Or, only at subscription.avast.com?
As mentioned by Benko in the initial post, it might take a few weeks…
I am surprised that my subscription works in Premium Security since it doesn’t show signs that is has been migrated.
As this is the official topic for this update, I’d like to restate my unhappiness that I expressed in the unofficial thread last night.
In this version nothing has been done about either the specific issue of the firewall blocking the inbuilt Windows 10 Miracast screen casting feature, or the more general issue of ad hoc networks.
When using the not at all obscure but honking great ‘Connect’ button in the Windows 10 Action Centre to start casting the screen via Miracast to a suitable display like a Miracast enabled TV or Roku Express, not only does the Avast Firewall block it as it tries to establish an ad hoc network with the receiver as per Miracast specs, but Avast does NOT even put up a notification that it has done so, let alone a dialogue box asking if it should allow it - leaving unsuspecting users to e.g. think a Windows update had broken the Miracast Connect functionality as they’ve had no sign that it was the Avast Firewall blocking it leading to the Windows ‘connection failed’ message. AND even when the culprit is found, there’s no obvious solution other than turning off the Avast Firewall. There’s certainly no indication that it CAN be made to work by turning on a setting that by name has nothing to do with it. How is someone supposed to work out that the Firewall will allow the Miracast casting if the user turns ON ‘Internet sharing mode’ in Avast when (a) this is not Internet sharing, and (b) the user probably has the exactly same named ‘Internet sharing mode’ turned OFF in the Windows 10 settings? Plus ‘Internet sharing mode’ in Avast open the Firewall much wider and in unnecessary ways that are not needed - and are not desired by me - to permit the ad hoc Miracast network. And I’ll add that the old settings Firewall Friends page shows that only some of the IP ranges reserved for local use - like ad hoc networks - have been defined as ‘Friends’, which potentially blocks a bunch of legitimate connections, not just Miracast, but the page has the input disabled so we users can’t even do anything about it (not that we should have to).
This is a shambles, Avast. I reported it months ago. Are you going to sort it out or not? If you can’t deliver a Firewall that actually handles all the legitimate things a Firewall should handle, like ad hoc networks and Miracast, then when my subscription is up I’ll move to a product from someone who can … and I certainly know of at least two other firewalls that handle ad hoc networks and Miracast casting seamlessly from my own experience. This is a very disappointing effort (or lack of it) from you.
I just redid the whole update process in my VM to test the checkbox behavior. The exact same procedure as yesterday.
The menu is now once again called Personal Privacy. So a fix was applied and Avast has backpedaled on the new menu naming.
The new checkbox however most certainly does not respect previously made privacy choices!
@Benko; please explain to me how an opted out checkbox can be split into two and have one of the newly separated checkboxes be checked? This flies directly against your; “we are respecting your very decision even after splitting the consent in settings in this latest version.”
This is what I see:
Screenshot one: the situation before the update. Notice the lack of checked boxes.
Screenshot two: the situation after update and reboot. The main portion of the screen is forever loading. The side and top menus respond and going the the privacy submenu shows me the same two boxes as in screenshot one.
Screenshot three: the situation after a second reboot. The main screen now works again. And this is how the privacy submenu looks. See for yourself that the third checkbox is checked, despite the original two boxes being unchecked!
I really can’t make it more clear than this.
The EULA has always been used as the stick to justify actions by the company writing it for their product/s.
For the most part most people never read the EULA, as it is full of legalise in many cases, not saying this is the case with Avast. But when they get hit over the head with the EULA, not only do they get a headache but also a bad taste in their mouth.
EULAs should be fair to all parties.
Yes and in my opinion an attempt to muddy the waters, not make such settings more transparent.
After this update upon startup PING.EXE and TRACERT.EXE both run at startup, is this happening to anyone else?
I’m running a Windows 7 64bit machine and have never witnessed this until after I updated today.
Edit: Just to silence the voice in my head, did a full virus scan and came back totally clean.
Avast never respected those checkboxes anyway, in either free or paid.
Untick them all (even the extra ones in paid) and still traffic would go to well known telemetry
servers.
How about give us the option to actually really opt-out of it all?
Agreed. The privacy issues raised here and the Avast responses only highlight a real trend in recent years, that the software industry is only interested in fulfilling it’s legal obligations and ignores any moral/political obligation.
In the REAL WORLD, most end users never read the EULA and don’t tweak software settings, unless advised by IT savvy friends/family. IMO, Avast and many other established software providers, exploit this position for their own financial ends.
True transparency must occur at a level that ALL end users really understand OR are informed of (by the software developer). Sadly, I understand that this probably won’t happen, but then again, you may say, I’m a dreamer (JL 1971).
YES. I was just about to post about this. I did a thorough boot-time scan and separate malware scan. Then I did a system restore to before the last MS updates and some other updates. After [reinstalling] every one thing I rebooted and those programs did not start. Then as soon as I updated avast again those popped up. I think I saw NETSTAT.EXE on startup too but it was gone from the task manager too quickly to be sure. All of them were in all caps like that too. From what I googled they are legitimate programs in the system32 folder, but are supposed to be manually started by the user if needed. I would like to know what the issue is.
Using avast free on W7 Home Premium with SP1.