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

Post by throwaway2048 » Fri, May 31, 2019, 2:11 AM UTC

privateSFacct wrote: post #48

throwaway2048 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by ballenf » Fri, May 31, 2019, 2:27 AM UTC

_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…

Post by Redoubts » Fri, May 31, 2019, 2:46 AM UTC

ballenf wrote: post #53

_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…

> Browser extensions up until this point have been a massive security hole No, that's a very misleading use of the term "security hole". By that definition, every piece of software on your computer is a "massive security" risk. Heck, even Chrome itself is a massive security hole since it can see the content of every page you visit. I think it's worth reacting strongly to this argument because it's exactly the kind of…

Post by garkin » Fri, May 31, 2019, 4:20 AM UTC

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #3

That's a bit hyperbolic though. I imagine a high percentage of HN users block ads, but the overall rate is more like 25%[1] I suppose Forbes' editors weren't so excited about "Google gives about 500M Chrome users a reason to switch..." 1: https://www.statista.com/statistics/804008/ad-blocking-reach...

Post by 15characterslon » Fri, May 31, 2019, 4:54 AM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #43

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.

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.