4 ms·
Chrome's permissions are not a panacea, but this article doesn't provide a convincingly better alternative. "code review" doesn't scale, especially at the leve
by appleflaxen 10y ago
Chrome's permissions are not a panacea, but this article doesn't provide a convincingly better alternative.
"code review" doesn't scale, especially at the level of a nonprofit, when users are submitting their own add-ons. It may be that code review has a role (it's a compelling argument), but knowing exactly what an add-on is doing is really important.
One way in which it could be better: instead of "internet access" as a unit, provide a whitelist of sites the app can access. And, if the privileges change in any way, flag it for human review and maybe even reset the review count.
- carussell 10y agoMozilla Corporation has over 1000 employees and the same kind of perks and accoutrements of other Bay Area tech companies. The amount of revenue they've received through business partnerships is measured in the billions of USD. They sponsor events at hip venues with open bars and party-like atmospheres. The picture of an overworked and frail non-profit has been out of date for nearly a decade now.
- Sylos 10y agoMozilla already has complete human code review in place, so that's why the article isn't specifying a better solution. Yes, it doesn't scale at all, but this is one of the things where non-profit actually has the edge, as Mozilla can just throw their huge community of volunteers at the problem.