4 ms·
Have you ever tried preventing an extension from being updated (you can't) or rolling back an update? Go ahead and try. I agree that 98% of the time it is fin
by apostacy 9y ago
Have you ever tried preventing an extension from being updated (you can't) or rolling back an update?
Go ahead and try.
I agree that 98% of the time it is fine, but that is not the point. I want to have control over the software that runs on my computer, especially if sometimes useful functionality is stripped away, or malicious code can be run.
Off the top of my head, I had Google Drive install a chrome extension which then informed me that it needed me to grant it more permissions than it had when it was installed without asking by Google Drive, and then when I didn't grant them, it removed itself after a few days, without a trace.
Or there was the time that the Chromecast extension disappeared. Of course, this was because Google integrated that functionality directly into the browser, but, it made me feel very uncomfortable that the software on my computer was so unpredictable.
And there are many other times that extensions have just "upgraded" themselves into breaking.
Out of frustration after feeling no sense of agency, I started using git to track the changes to my chrome config folder. Even if I used git to roll back the filesystem to its previous state, I then have to modify the extensions to not have the right url to check for updates, and then there are still other mechanisms to thwart that. At best, I was able to manually re-enable the extensions I want, and I had to write a script to automate it after each time I started chrome.
Outside of the Chrome extensions themselves, when you install several Google products, like Drive or Google Earth, it adds it's spyware-like "keystone agent" updating daemon to three different locations. WHY? If you remove any of it's hooks, it just re-creates them. And it will monitor your filesystem and irreversibly apply updates to Chrome, which may remove features (like the ability to side-load extensions, or save HTML5 video, or mandatory WideVine DRM).
None of this is made clear to you. It will ask you for root access just so it can install its system-wide updater in two locations, but if you deny it, it will still install it for the current user. If you start to remove it, it will never alert you that it is being tampered with or explain what is going on, it will just resist like spyware, re-creating itself.
Out of frustration, I just started making files immutable so that it couldn't re-inject itself. Obviously that is not ideal, but I had work to do and I was sick of it worming around my computer.
It doesn't have to be this way. I understand the importance of updates. But Google doesn't have to do it in such an underhanded and frankly hostile manor. But this reflects a culture of gaslighting of the user, and general hostility.
So, it makes sense that malicious actors could piggyback on Google's already user-hostile platform. Google is already doing much of the work for them.
EDIT:
And before anyone responds by saying that there are technical means to take control of the Chrome browser that I missed, I am sure there are, but that is not the point. I am aware that there is an environment variable you can set that will request that Keystone Agent stop updating, but it is completely undiscoverable, and does not actually stop Keystone Agent from running. Someone should not have to have an extensive understanding of software development just to be able to say "NO", and accept the responsibility for it.
- pishpash 9y agoAs I said before, monopoly companies grow more arrogant over time and Google was particularly arrogant, patronizing, and dismissive of user concerns from the start. What began as a technical innovation, the auto update, quickly became a means of user control and has since spread industry-wide. You can tell when it became user control when you could no longer turn it off.
- gdulli 9y agoGoogle exists to be the world's perfect example of the dangers of conflating knowledge with wisdom.
- fehfehfooo 9y agoExpecting an advertising company like google to have scruples strikes me as more than a little myopic and misguided. Stop using the products of advertisers, their goals are antithetical to what arguably should be yours.
- xg15 9y agoIf you don't like the update, wait till you discover the telemetry. Or the field trials. IMO, trying to keep standard-edition Chrome from updating itself (or the extensions) is a hopeless endeavor. It was basically part of the core philosophy for chrome from day one was that Google can basically push arbitrary feature and behavior changes at any time (But they promise really hard they'll be careful with that). I think the marketing was something like "The only version for Chome is 'current'". If you want control, there are better options, e.g. using Chromium, a fork or another browser altogether. What I find more worrying is that the practice of aggressively auto-updating everything has become almost an industry standard. At some time we seem to have gone from protecting people against phome-home trojans to turning all our products into them and playing political games with the resulting power. In fact, software is seen as a security risk if it is not a phone-home trojan because apparently all users are children who cannot be trusted to take care of their own computers. This is very convenient for the industry, because if all software is constantly changing, why bother to keep the underlying standards constant? That's why we now have "Living standards" that constantly change and expect all implementations to follow suit.