4 ms·
Imagine you run a very popular website, and you have a policy that says "we will never modify any site data by accessing the database directly", to try to ensur
by Deimorz 7y ago
Imagine you run a very popular website, and you have a policy that says "we will never modify any site data by accessing the database directly", to try to ensure that everything goes through site functionality and can be properly logged/etc.
One day, some weird data gets into the database somehow, the site's completely unable to handle it, and it crashes and goes totally down. You're faced with two options:
1. Rewrite a major section of the site code to be able to handle the bad data. This is expected to take at least two days to complete.
2. Break the policy, fix the data in the database, and have the site back up in 5 minutes.
Do you truly believe that Option #2 needs to be treated as completely out of the question?
- gilrain 7y agoNot nearly analogous. First, the policy was not about accountability, it was about privacy and specifically restoring a trust already broken. Second, it would only have taken a worst case of 24 hours vs the 6 hours of using Studies to follow that policy. I think the integrity of a company that trades on that very thing is worth 18 hours.
- dralley 7y ago> it was about privacy Yes, and adblockers, umatrix/noscript, Tor, and other add-ons were universally broken. That has an impact on privacy too.
- gilrain 7y agoSo how many of Mozilla's policies need to be appended with "unless we think it's important enough"? All of them? Just the ones violated this time?
- quanticle 7y agoThe implied distinction is that adherence to principle is what distinguishes Mozilla from Google. If Mozilla is willing to sell out its principles on this instance, then when else will it be willing to sell out its principles?
- Mirioron 7y agoIt's not like people didn't tell Mozilla about the potential for problems like this when signing was added.