Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Just Gave 2B Chrome Users a Reason to Switch to Firefox

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: Google Just Gave 2B Chrome Users a Reason to Switch to Firefox

#41

Post by hu3 »

Mirioron wrote: post #34
_bxg1 wrote: post #18

It is worth noting that revamping the browser extension permissions model is something that should definitely be done. Browser extensions up until this point have been a massive security hole: they basically get read/write permissions on every web page you visit. Of course, content blocking could've been part of that new security model. As Google tightens its grip, I wouldn't be surprised if someone starts a genuine…

> they basically get read/write permissions on every web page you visit. But you can select on which sites the extension is active. You can even make it only active when you click on it.

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of an adblocker?

Re: Google Just Gave 2B Chrome Users a Reason to Switch to Firefox

#42

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

_bxg1 wrote: post #18

It is worth noting that revamping the browser extension permissions model is something that should definitely be done. Browser extensions up until this point have been a massive security hole: they basically get read/write permissions on every web page you visit. Of course, content blocking could've been part of that new security model. As Google tightens its grip, I wouldn't be surprised if someone starts a genuine…

Content blocking is definitely part of the new security model; they wrote a "declarativeNetRequest" API designed to enable content blocking. The debate is just over whether that API is sufficiently expressive.

Re: Google Just Gave 2B Chrome Users a Reason to Switch to Firefox

#43

Post by mehrdadn »

Mirioron wrote: post #34
_bxg1 wrote: post #18

It is worth noting that revamping the browser extension permissions model is something that should definitely be done. Browser extensions up until this point have been a massive security hole: they basically get read/write permissions on every web page you visit. Of course, content blocking could've been part of that new security model. As Google tightens its grip, I wouldn't be surprised if someone starts a genuine…

> they basically get read/write permissions on every web page you visit. But you can select on which sites the extension is active. You can even make it only active when you click on it.

Is this a new thing? Most of the time when I've installed extensions I've just seen an initial prompt that says the extension can view and modify your data on any page, so either agree & add, or get out.

Re: Google Just Gave 2B Chrome Users a Reason to Switch to Firefox

#44

Post by dang »

delhanty wrote: post #25

Possible dupe from yesterday perhaps? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20044430 And not a bogus story in my opinion.

Yes, along with many other recent threads:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20052623

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20038872

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20050173

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20037562

Re: Google Just Gave 2B Chrome Users a Reason to Switch to Firefox

#45

Post by johannes1234321 »

hu3 wrote: post #41
Mirioron wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they basically get read/write permissions on every web page you visit. But you can select on which sites the extension is active. You can even make it only active when you click on it.

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of an adblocker?

For an adblocker maybe, for other maybe less.

And even the adblocker might be disabled on the online banking site.

Re: Google Just Gave 2B Chrome Users a Reason to Switch to Firefox

#46

Post by _bxg1 »

Mirioron wrote: post #34
_bxg1 wrote: post #18

It is worth noting that revamping the browser extension permissions model is something that should definitely be done. Browser extensions up until this point have been a massive security hole: they basically get read/write permissions on every web page you visit. Of course, content blocking could've been part of that new security model. As Google tightens its grip, I wouldn't be surprised if someone starts a genuine…

> they basically get read/write permissions on every web page you visit. But you can select on which sites the extension is active. You can even make it only active when you click on it.

This isn't a browser feature, it's an AdBlock Plus feature. You're just switching off the blocking for certain sites, not turning off the extension itself in any meaningful way.

Re: Google Just Gave 2B Chrome Users a Reason to Switch to Firefox

#47

Post by pdkl95 »

Cory Doctorow was right... it wasn't copyright that brought out the big guns in the War On General Purpose Computing. The real battles started when people utilizing the full power of heir computing devices started to threaten currently-profitable business models.

The media companies saw media piracy and asked[2]:

> "Can't you just make us a general-purpose computer that runs all the programs, except the ones that scare and anger us?"

Google (and advertisers in general) is now asking ""Can't you just make us a general-purpose browser that runs all the programs, except the ones that programs that interfere with our business model?"

[1] https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html

[2] Ibid.

Re: Google Just Gave 2B Chrome Users a Reason to Switch to Firefox

#48

Post by privateSFacct »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #26
privateSFacct wrote: post #19

What a bogus story. The issue google is trying to address here is that the adblockers get permissions to basically all browsing data. Google specifically says "Chrome supports the use and development of ad blockers." There is going to be a content filtering approach that doesn't require folks give full access to all browser activity to a third party. For example, google could provide hooks for a pattern list that the…

This has zero to do with privacy and security, because the APIs being removed only have to do with modifying pages, the ability to read data from pages is unaffected. The only real consumer of these APIs are ad blockers, they are quite obviously being specifically targeted. Painting this as all about user safety when it handsomely rewards Google's largest profit center is farcical. (the new static list of 50k filters…

The extensions that want to do blocking would then not need to request permission to read and modify pages.

As users we could pick adblockers that didn't require permission to ready all our activity.

How is reducing the required permissions (significantly) not an enhancement to user safety.

Your argument that we always must give extension authors full permissions to get anything done is a pathetic one frankly.

Re: Google Just Gave 2B Chrome Users a Reason to Switch to Firefox

#50

Post by privateSFacct »

guptaneil wrote: post #28
privateSFacct wrote: post #19

What a bogus story. The issue google is trying to address here is that the adblockers get permissions to basically all browsing data. Google specifically says "Chrome supports the use and development of ad blockers." There is going to be a content filtering approach that doesn't require folks give full access to all browser activity to a third party. For example, google could provide hooks for a pattern list that the…

> There is going to be a content filtering approach that doesn't require folks give full access to all browser activity to a third party. FWIW that's how content blockers in Safari have worked for while now. I've always been surprised at how accepting people are of using a browser from an ad company.

Right, iOS also historically had a finer grained / more on point permission model than android, and I've liked that approach. Apps can request permissions that reasonably connect with their activity. The pop ups to provide that permission usually make sense (I generally say no to access all my contacts etc).
Post reply on HN