3 ms·

> The first is that it protects the privacy of users better. That is an unjustifiably absolute statement. In security you need to look at threat models, not j

by jjav 4y ago

> The first is that it protects the privacy of users better. That is an unjustifiably absolute statement. In security you need to look at threat models, not just declaring something better or worse. There are multiple parties you may (or may not) trust. For instance, the browser developer, the website developer and the extension developer. Different people legitimately have different threat models. You seem to trust the browser developer (an advertising company driven by ad profits above all else) the most. In that scenario, your statement makes sense. I trust the ad-blocker extension developer more than the other parties, so of course I want it to have full acess to block evil behavior.

charcircuit 4y ago
>That is an unjustifiably absolute statement. It's fine to be absolute due to the contents of requests no longer being able to be accessed by extensions. There being less data that can be slurped up is a win. >For instance, the browser developer If you are Google you already trust yourself. >Different people legitimately have different threat models. The context of this change is to protect people's privacy from malicious extension developers. >You seem to trust the browser developer That is beside the point I'm trying to make. >I trust the ad-blocker extension developer more than the other parties, so of course I want it to have full acess to block evil behavior. But do you trust that every web extension that will exist will not abuse that full access? I sure don't. This change isn't because of trustworthy / high quality extensions, but because of malicious and slow extensions. By changing the API exposed Google wants to reduce the number of extensions in that second category without breaking the extensions in the first.
- jjav 4y ago
  > But do you trust that every web extension that will exist will not abuse that full access? I sure don't. I sure don't. But that is not in my threat model because I have zero intention of ever installing every web extension that will exist. In my threat model the evil parties are the advertising/spyware industry (which includes google) so I want powerful browser extensions to help with that problem.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    Your threat model isn't universal to the billion users of Chrome.

by jjav 4y ago

charcircuit 4y ago

>That is an unjustifiably absolute statement. It's fine to be absolute due to the contents of requests no longer being able to be accessed by extensions. There being less data that can be slurped up is a win. >For instance, the browser developer If you are Google you already trust yourself. >Different people legitimately have different threat models. The context of this change is to protect people's privacy from malicious extension developers. >You seem to trust the browser developer That is beside the point I'm trying to make. >I trust the ad-blocker extension developer more than the other parties, so of course I want it to have full acess to block evil behavior. But do you trust that every web extension that will exist will not abuse that full access? I sure don't. This change isn't because of trustworthy / high quality extensions, but because of malicious and slow extensions. By changing the API exposed Google wants to reduce the number of extensions in that second category without breaking the extensions in the first.

jjav 4y ago
> But do you trust that every web extension that will exist will not abuse that full access? I sure don't. I sure don't. But that is not in my threat model because I have zero intention of ever installing every web extension that will exist. In my threat model the evil parties are the advertising/spyware industry (which includes google) so I want powerful browser extensions to help with that problem.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  Your threat model isn't universal to the billion users of Chrome.