The problem with appending a list to this article is that this issue is presumed to be wide spread[1]. Creating a long list might give the illusion of exhaustiveness when the aim of the project isn't exhaustive identification of offenders, but to demonstrate the problem clearly with strong evidence.
This at least empowers the Chrome developers to attack a defined problem, and it gives chrome users a tangible, clearly defined set of in-the-wild attacks to point to when complaining about Chrome's extension permission shortcomings. It also is an amount of work that is achievable by a small team, where an exhaustive outing would probably require the resources of a large organization.
[1] Particularly since they seem to have found evidence that these tracking companies are actively reaching out to Chrome extension developers on the dl and offering them commissions.
This at least empowers the Chrome developers to attack a defined problem, and it gives chrome users a tangible, clearly defined set of in-the-wild attacks to point to when complaining about Chrome's extension permission shortcomings. It also is an amount of work that is achievable by a small team, where an exhaustive outing would probably require the resources of a large organization.
[1] Particularly since they seem to have found evidence that these tracking companies are actively reaching out to Chrome extension developers on the dl and offering them commissions.