321–330 of 405 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a strained metaphor. What I was trying to say is that clicking on a search result and getting a paywall instead of the content alluded to on the search page is not expected behavior to the end user.
Do you think Google might start removing or lowering the priorities of sites like this in search results?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternatively, the add-ons break the social contract, whereby content creators request payment for their content. If you visit stuff on the web, you respect the concept of a social contract between you and the provide. Don’t try to circumvent their wishes.
HTTP is public by default and SMTP is private by default. The laws respecting this in the US are pretty solid, especially for email. In the US privacy generally trumps public access which allows email to retain its private by default status even if served over HTTP (web mail). That said anybody attempting to make parts of content non-pubic in HTTP without appropriate security restrictions are void the protections of…
It’s a common misconception that the word “effective,” as used in the respective legislation, was intended to mean “successful” or “always cause.” Rather, it’s always been interpreted to mean, “is designed to have the effect of.”
The fact that the measure is not always successful or is breakable does not make the law no longer applicable; that would be an absurd result. The law isn’t interpreted literally when the result would be absurd; this is doctrine that goes back to at least 1892 and even further back to English common law. See, e.g., Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892).
Engineers too often assume that the text of the law means what they think it means. This is one of those cases where a lack of legal education serves them poorly and leads them to incorrect conclusions.
I am the author of that add-on ... what would you do in my shoes ? - provide an XPI (that will only benefit the few since the side-loading process is made awkwarder at every point release) ? - fight it ? If so, on what grounds and how ? - something else ?
Both DMCA and EU directive 2001/29/EC prohibit circumventing technological measures that "effectively control access". Checking user agent doesn't meet the requirement to be considered an effective access control technological measure.
I highly doubt that. Keep in mind that age restrictions which make you hit a single button to circumvent them are much worse in keeping the wrong users out, and afaik legally they're perfectly fine.
"Effective access control" means they have to do something which may work to some degree and doesn't have to be a burden financially or technically.
This extension just seems to strip tracking data and pretend to be a Google bot. It baffles me that this is somehow concerning enough to be taken down. And anyway, isn't making exemptions for Google's robots sort-of against their policy? https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66355
You are not allowed to circumvent paywalls, just like you are not allowed to circumvent locks, no matter how easy they are to circumvent. As far as I have always understood, you may publish a locksmithing guide, even an “entering your home when locked out” guide, but not a “how to commit burglary” guide.
I am the author of that add-on ... what would you do in my shoes ? - provide an XPI (that will only benefit the few since the side-loading process is made awkwarder at every point release) ? - fight it ? If so, on what grounds and how ? - something else ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox Developer Edition isn't beta.
Isn't the developer edition the replacement for Aurora? (which is supposed to be more unstable than beta)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can if you use the Developer Edition. It's permanently disabled in the normal version because malware would piggyback on the browser to steal passwords and so on. Obviously Mozilla have no problem with people wanting to make their own extensions and so on.
I wonder to what extent that helps prevent malware from installing a malicious addon to Firefox, because by using the same mechanism as cheating in video games, you can hot-patch a running browser process to disable the functionality to keep it from installing unsigned addons. Technically, in Windows you would just call WriteProcessMemory to modify memory content of another process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can if you use the Developer Edition. It's permanently disabled in the normal version because malware would piggyback on the browser to steal passwords and so on. Obviously Mozilla have no problem with people wanting to make their own extensions and so on.
Would it be difficult to set up a list of allowed signatures in Firefox? By making it unintuitive for the average user to modify, you would prevent most bad actors from succeeding but still allow power users to control their own experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That means it's signed with Mozilla's signature. Actually, I think extensions can maybe be signed by Mozilla even if they're not on addons.mozilla.org.
Yes, but Mozilla will refuse to sign extensions that are not hosted in their app store.