4 ms·
Not really. "Lying" includes an intent to deceive. I would have been okay with "raises false alarms", "generates false positive" or even "confuses and/or mislea
by Piskvorrr 8y ago
Not really. "Lying" includes an intent to deceive. I would have been okay with "raises false alarms", "generates false positive" or even "confuses and/or misleads users".
As a user, I want to be better safe than sorry - but would perhaps be happier with a finer classification than "no problem/OMG VIRUS!"
- themarkn 8y agoI agree that finer classification is needed. However: if you decide to declare to a user that every individual file that might contain a virus does contain a virus, that's intentionally deceiving them. It's deciding "X% of the time, this statement will not be true, and we are ok with that" instead of building the uncertainty into the statement itself. So I don't see how this can not be considered lying, unless they believed there would be no false positives.
- xg15 8y agoUntil the moment where you really need that file.
- howard941 8y agoThis. Firefox has become far more aggressive in policing use. For ex., if HTTPS is misconfigured 60.0.2 no longer offers an option for one time exceptions, now there's only 'get me out of here' and 'report to mozilla' buttons. Perhaps someone more familiar with ff's config knobs will post the knob name.
- Liquid_Fire 8y agoI'm running 60.0.2 and I still have the option to add an exception, under "Advanced". What you describe only happens when the site is so badly misconfigured that no connection is possible (e.g. protocol errors).
- garaetjjte 8y agoYou cannot add exception for domain using HSTS.