4 ms·

On the other side of the coin, Firefox makes it quite hard to push updates to users that require more permissions, requiring manual intervention to update. It s

On the other side of the coin, Firefox makes it quite hard to push updates to users that require more permissions, requiring manual intervention to update. It signifies this with a small muted yellow exclamation mark on the hamburger menu, which is really hard to see. I've not received my own updates for weeks a few times because I haven't noticed the warning, and about a third of our users are on ancient versions presumably because of it [1]. I think the real solution to this problem is GDPR: massive fines if you abuse your users' trust (and get caught). I'm not keen on the literal dark pattern that Firefox uses to dissuade developers from requiring new permissions. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tridactyl-vim/statistics/usage/versions/?last=365# https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tridactyl-vim...

worble 8y ago
>On the other side of the coin, Firefox makes it quite hard to push updates to users that require more permissions, requiring manual intervention to update. It signifies this with a small muted yellow exclamation mark on the hamburger menu, which is really hard to see. I'm not sure how you can see this as anything but a good thing. If your extension wants more permissions than originally promised, then it absolutely should have to require user intervention to do. You can't just change the agreement like that. Maybe it could be better communicated, although I have to say I don't think I've ever not noticed that yellow icon, but this is far, far better than the alternative.
fabricexpert 8y ago
New permissions shouldn't be taken lightly. One day you'll install an extension that access only on a specific site, and the next day it's requesting access to all your bookmarks, location data, history etc. If you make it into a next next next dialogue box you're implementing an easily abused dark pattern. A better approach would be to allow extension upgrades, irrespective of permissions. If a user chooses to deny permissions the extension should still work on the latest version.
- wruza 8y ago
  Why not just return empty datasets to extensions that ask for too much? Empty history, empty address book, white noise for camera and microphones, etc. Then it would be possible not only to ‘accept’ what it does or uninstall, but seamlessly deny what you don’t want.
  - fabricexpert 8y ago
    Yes, agree!
applecrazy 8y ago
Actually, Chrome does this too: > Chrome prompts the user if adding the permissions results in different warning messages than the user has already seen and accepted.[1] [1]: https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/permissions https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/permissions
- Spoom 8y ago
  The thing with Chrome extensions is, many, many extensions already require the ability to interact with every page you visit, which is essentially Chrome extension root. If your extension already requires this, you don't need to add permissions when you update / sell your extension, so nobody is warned.
inetknght 8y ago
Firefox is in the right here. I absolutely do not ever want extensions to automatically get new permissions automatically just because I accepted an old version's lesser permissions. If you want more permissions, then ask for more permissions. And don't be surprised when people say NO. Not everyone wants to grant the permissions to your update even if the update fixes bugs in older versions. Not everyone will want your new feature in the first place. Denying permissions is an easy way to eliminate the risk of having to go through and figure out whether or not the new feature is trustworthy. And if you're not adding a new feature, then why do you need more permissions?
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  Automatic permission addition is totally unacceptable, agreed. But I do think that Firefox should actually ask, at least once. A vague exclamation point on the edge of the screen isn't really a sufficient way of handling that for extensions a user has chosen to add.
- bovine3dom 8y ago
  > then ask for more permissions. I agree with you. As another reply to you states, however, Firefox doesn't currently let me ask. You have to kind of go hunting for it. > And if you're not adding a new feature, then why do you need more permissions? Firefox does not let me explain why the permissions are needed. It would be nice if we could have a little blurb where we can state our case next to each permission. Our current approach is to explain likely upcoming permissions requests in advance and ask our users to stay vigilant for the appearance of the tiny yellow exclamation mark, but that's not very helpful to the third of users stuck on old verions before we learnt that trick. > And don't be surprised when people say NO. I think very few of these users have said no on purpose. We ask for (and use) almost everything [1], so any marginal new permissions are unlikely to give us much more power. The current permission model actually makes it tempting to just literally ask for everything because we might want it for a new feature in the future. The optional permissions are not fine-grained enough to be useful (you can accept all optional permissions, or none) and not available for enough permissions, otherwise we would use them. Also, the first versions of our software were really slow and bad. I really doubt many people are staying there on purpose. (If there are any Tridactyl users in this thread using an old version on purpose, I'd like to hear from you :) ). [1] https://github.com/cmcaine/tridactyl/blob/e20a224fb8d8bbb2b742599cc69672d7c9fe0c42/src/manifest.json#L41 https://github.com/cmcaine/tridactyl/blob/e20a224fb8d8bbb2b7...
srcmap 8y ago
Firefox (Chrome) should make it very easy for anyone to audit what extension/plugin are doing. If url, div, cookies and any other info are collected, what are they? What server connections are made by the extension, IP, Name, contents of info transmitted? All the GUI, collection system should be in place as part of JS dev/debug tools already. Just customized it a bit so any tech savvy users can check the audit logs and enable more logging for a plugin if needed. If an user spots something not right, it is also easy to out the "plugin/extension" on a public forum.

worble 8y ago

>On the other side of the coin, Firefox makes it quite hard to push updates to users that require more permissions, requiring manual intervention to update. It signifies this with a small muted yellow exclamation mark on the hamburger menu, which is really hard to see. I'm not sure how you can see this as anything but a good thing. If your extension wants more permissions than originally promised, then it absolutely should have to require user intervention to do. You can't just change the agreement like that. Maybe it could be better communicated, although I have to say I don't think I've ever not noticed that yellow icon, but this is far, far better than the alternative.

fabricexpert 8y ago

New permissions shouldn't be taken lightly. One day you'll install an extension that access only on a specific site, and the next day it's requesting access to all your bookmarks, location data, history etc. If you make it into a next next next dialogue box you're implementing an easily abused dark pattern. A better approach would be to allow extension upgrades, irrespective of permissions. If a user chooses to deny permissions the extension should still work on the latest version.

wruza 8y ago
Why not just return empty datasets to extensions that ask for too much? Empty history, empty address book, white noise for camera and microphones, etc. Then it would be possible not only to ‘accept’ what it does or uninstall, but seamlessly deny what you don’t want.
- fabricexpert 8y ago
  Yes, agree!

applecrazy 8y ago

Actually, Chrome does this too: > Chrome prompts the user if adding the permissions results in different warning messages than the user has already seen and accepted.[1] [1]: https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/permissions https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/permissions

Spoom 8y ago
The thing with Chrome extensions is, many, many extensions already require the ability to interact with every page you visit, which is essentially Chrome extension root. If your extension already requires this, you don't need to add permissions when you update / sell your extension, so nobody is warned.

inetknght 8y ago

Firefox is in the right here. I absolutely do not ever want extensions to automatically get new permissions automatically just because I accepted an old version's lesser permissions. If you want more permissions, then ask for more permissions. And don't be surprised when people say NO. Not everyone wants to grant the permissions to your update even if the update fixes bugs in older versions. Not everyone will want your new feature in the first place. Denying permissions is an easy way to eliminate the risk of having to go through and figure out whether or not the new feature is trustworthy. And if you're not adding a new feature, then why do you need more permissions?

Bartweiss 8y ago
Automatic permission addition is totally unacceptable, agreed. But I do think that Firefox should actually ask, at least once. A vague exclamation point on the edge of the screen isn't really a sufficient way of handling that for extensions a user has chosen to add.
bovine3dom 8y ago
> then ask for more permissions. I agree with you. As another reply to you states, however, Firefox doesn't currently let me ask. You have to kind of go hunting for it. > And if you're not adding a new feature, then why do you need more permissions? Firefox does not let me explain why the permissions are needed. It would be nice if we could have a little blurb where we can state our case next to each permission. Our current approach is to explain likely upcoming permissions requests in advance and ask our users to stay vigilant for the appearance of the tiny yellow exclamation mark, but that's not very helpful to the third of users stuck on old verions before we learnt that trick. > And don't be surprised when people say NO. I think very few of these users have said no on purpose. We ask for (and use) almost everything [1], so any marginal new permissions are unlikely to give us much more power. The current permission model actually makes it tempting to just literally ask for everything because we might want it for a new feature in the future. The optional permissions are not fine-grained enough to be useful (you can accept all optional permissions, or none) and not available for enough permissions, otherwise we would use them. Also, the first versions of our software were really slow and bad. I really doubt many people are staying there on purpose. (If there are any Tridactyl users in this thread using an old version on purpose, I'd like to hear from you :) ). [1] https://github.com/cmcaine/tridactyl/blob/e20a224fb8d8bbb2b742599cc69672d7c9fe0c42/src/manifest.json#L41 https://github.com/cmcaine/tridactyl/blob/e20a224fb8d8bbb2b7...

srcmap 8y ago

Firefox (Chrome) should make it very easy for anyone to audit what extension/plugin are doing. If url, div, cookies and any other info are collected, what are they? What server connections are made by the extension, IP, Name, contents of info transmitted? All the GUI, collection system should be in place as part of JS dev/debug tools already. Just customized it a bit so any tech savvy users can check the audit logs and enable more logging for a plugin if needed. If an user spots something not right, it is also easy to out the "plugin/extension" on a public forum.