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

Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser

support.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 537 posts

Re: Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser

#321

Post by kuschku »

DarronWyke wrote: post #316
kuschku wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ToS terms that aren’t either expected by the user, or explained in plain text without having to click through anything, are considered null and void in the EU. By that definition, this would be unallowed modification of the computer of the user, and fall under the various hacking acts. The more interesting thing is that this has also been rolled out to german government computers, which mostly used to use Firefox, bu…

>ToS terms that aren’t either expected by the user, or explained in plain text without having to click through anything, are considered null and void in the EU. You mean like the TOS and EULA you agree to when you install the browser? That would qualify as "expected by the user" and "explained in plain text" both.

Correct, those ToS and EULA are considered invalid, if they contain unexpected agreements, such as "your firstborn belongs to us", or "we can install whatever software we want on your system".

Re: Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser

#322

Post by pygy_ »

hbosch wrote: post #231
pgl wrote: post #85

Previously: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15921134 This is a link to the GitHub issue: * https://github.com/gregglind/addon-wr/issues/36 There are several scary things about this: - Unknown Mozilla developers can distribute addons to users without their permission - Mozilla developers can distribute addons to users without their knowledge - Mozilla developers themselves don't realise the consequences of doin…

> Mozilla developers can distribute addons to users without their knowledge I think for most people this is the stickiest point. Other commenters have said things along the lines of, "well if you trust their browser you should be able to trust their add-ons" and I do, mostly, trust their add-on here... but I really don't like how it slipped into my Add-Ons without telling me. For every other Add-On I have to click an…

They could (should?) have a non-user visible addons stash for this kind of functionality. Putting it in the Add-ons UI is a bad idea.

Re: Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser

#323

Post by acqq »

rhys91 wrote: post #309
acqq wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's technicality. The description is still: "Looking Glass is a collaboration between Mozilla and the makers of Mr. Robot to provide a shared world experience." It doesn't matter who technically coded it. "Mr Robot marketing department" was obviously deciding about its existence, behavior and content -- if that description is true. But looking at the source of the extension, I find the following URLs inside: https:/…

I'm not sure why this is downvoted. I work in advertising as a conceptual creative. My entire career is about creating ideas like this for brands. An art director and copywriter sat in a room together over two days and came up with lots of different ideas to generate PR for Mr. Robot. They presented the ideas to a creative director, who went through the work and picked the one he felt was most suitable. They presente…

The biggest problem, for me, is that these extensions obviously get less scrutiny in Mozilla organization. The "core" is made with a lot of "eyes" taking care that not something "wrong" for the user enters the code base.

Then some marketing people both in and outside of Mozilla push something that is probably not passing the same strict reviews.

It points to the organizational problem in Mozilla.

Re: "not sure": don't worry, some people do this not for the content but for the author, some lack reading comprehension and some just press the wrong button. Just vote yourself, and if you reply, say that you agree, don't mention the word you mentioned.

Re: Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser

#324

Post by feelin_googley »

zie wrote: post #222
vorpalhex wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is being added to the browser, outside the realm of security updates, through what is supposed to be a UX improvement program, for commercial purposes. It's written by a commercial company that produces advertisement content. It's not clear this code is audited. Sorry, but I'm uninstalling firefox. They have broken the basic trust I have in them as a user to not push arbitrary code to my machine against my inter…

Have fun in Lynx. that's probably the only browser that wouldn't do something like this. Well maybe Safari, not because Apple wouldn't, but because they just don't care enough about ad revenue. Chrome: They leech everything they can get away with, granted it goes only to Google, but you know it's just to feed their never-ending ad-revenue goal. MS: They bypassed IE only ads, and went on to build ads into the entire O…

The truth is that there have been other text-only browsers both before and after lynx. I have tried every one I could ever find, since the 1990s. Some of them seem to have been forgotten. IMO, whatever is in todays package collections is not a true representation of all text-only browsers ever written. Most times when someone cites "lynx", as is common on HN, I interpret this as a signal they are not too familiar with text-only browsers. IMO, lynx is relatively big, slow and clunky with too many options; definitely not the best text-only browser I have used.

I happen to like text-only browsers for viewing HTML (e.g HTML tables), tcpclients like netcat for making TCP connections, and my own software for generating HTTP requests. Almost all websites work[FN1], with zero "loading time" as one may experience when using "modern" browsers to do these tasks. I can easily get the content I want (text, with option to download images, PDF, video, etc.) and skip the stuff I dont want. No autoloading of resources. I choose what I want.

Surprisingly, the web is actually getting more, not less text-friendly. Today I can often get text encapsulated in JSON, Markdown, etc. instead of wrapped in HTML, making parsing even easier.

There is heaps of Javascript written by others available on the web today but as a user I have little interest in running it. I would rather write my own.

FN1. "work" means I get the body the page that contains the content.

Re: Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser

#325

Post by Karunamon »

hitekker wrote: post #319

1) Mozilla uses weird, spooky language in an add-on. 2) Users are justifiably concerned. 3) Mozilla explains that the add-on is actually anodyne; the developers responsible were having fun with an opt-in research service. 4) Some users try to justify their initial overreaction by painting Firefox as mysterious, dangerous entity, fabulating conspiracy theories about one of the most forthright and open OSS companies in…

3.5) Most users insist that this isn't okay, that addon installations should be approved by the owner of the computer.

This isn't about what the addon itself does or does not do, it's the principle of force-pushing unwanted content without prior affirmative consent.

This would apply even if the addon was just a stub that didn't have any executable code in it. In this case, it's worse: an ad.

Re: Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser

#326

Post by Parcissons »

pilif wrote: post #215
pmlnr wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not concerned that Mozilla might push malware into Firefox installations Nobody is concerned about that, in my opinion. I'm concerned someone will push malware through Mozilla into Firefox installations. Pushing addon installs should not be possible at all.

They can also push new browser releases though. They are also auto-installed by default. The exception is that an addon can do slightly less damage than a compromised browser itself.

I deeply hate this update methodology. Some hippster fresh from university decides that the gui, approach, functionality i use daily is no longer needed and pushes his rewrite into a release. One click later im stuck with this, because all the bundled crap is hijacking the "security" for a ride.

If any software developer would truely respect users, he would offer updates as seperate packages, where users can opt out of non-security ones- and those updates humanity votes with there feet against, vannish into the bin of useless software.

Re: Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser

#327

Post by detaro »

kuschku wrote: post #176
_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #136

Anyone know how I can turn off Firefox sending technical details and interactions? Everytime I turn this off, and restart FF it's on again. 58.0b11

If you are on a Nightly or Developer build, you can not turn it off, I asked on Mozilla’s IRC. Downloading these builds is considered opt-in into telemetry, and toolkit.telemetry.enabled is hardcoded to enabled, the opt-out checkbox literally does nothing, I was told. And about:config confirmed this.

Okay, having a checkbox that does nothing is really bad. The fact that the privacy policy only just says something like "this policy might not apply to non-release builds", without actually having a policy for those also is more than questionable.

Re: Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser

#328

Post by callahad »

jordigh wrote: post #307
callahad wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's FUD. Mozilla is a 501(c)3 non-profit, and our audited financial statements and IRS Form 990 can be found at https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/

Mozilla is... both. There's the Mozilla Foundation which is a nonprofit and the Mozilla Corporation which is very much not. I've never quite understood what each Mozilla does, but AIUI, the Firefox development is all done by Mozilla Corp and the nonprofit does stuff like make those cute videos about how Firefox is going to save the world and make us all smiley and multiethnic. I've talked to a number of Mozilla emplo…

The Mozilla Corporation ("MoCo"), which develops Firefox, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the non-profit Mozilla Foundation ("MoFo"). Each has its own board of directors, but the Corporation exists to serve the public benefit goals of the non-profit. The link above has a decent overview, and if you're especially curious, bylaws and articles of incorporation for each are at https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/about/.

Re: Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser

#329

Post by takeda »

proaralyst wrote: post #7

Looks like it's a promo for Mr Robot, which is really not ok. > What's happening? Are you a fan of Mr Robot? Are you trying to solve one of the many puzzles that the Mr Robot team has built? You’re on the right track. Firefox and Mr Robot have collaborated on a shared experience to further your immersion into the Mr Robot universe, also known as an Alternate Reality Game (ARG). The effects you’re seeing are a part of…

If it was a promo, it would be a real bad promo. I did not watch Mr Robot and that quote did not made me aware of it until people started referencing it here.

The extension is for shield study, when you install Firefox for the first time it asks if you want to take part in it (it is enabled by default though)

Re: Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser

#330

Post by rnhmjoj »

Grollicus wrote: post #313
rnhmjoj wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you like Firefox but don't trust Mozilla anymore there are plenty of forks to choose from: Waterfox, Pale Moon, Basilisk, GNU IceCat. Personally I build Firefox from source and maintain a set of patches largely based on these: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/firefox-esr-privacy/

I think about doing this as well but heard a lot of bad things about the firefox build process. How long does it take to build for you?

They are probably true. Using an i5 @4.3GHz it takes 2.5/3 hours to build. To test changes you must set up a compiler cache or it's going to take forever.
Post reply on HN