• pHr34kY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    This is a great change. I wonder how long before the hate brigade comes along to complain.

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        14 days ago

        Some extensions have a verified/recommended by Mozilla seal of approval, so these extensions would be checked by a human to see that they comply.

        Obviously they can’t check every update of every extension in existence, but even just the above is an improvement and certainly not useless.

        I don’t think this could be enforced by the API without also seriously limiting what extensions can do, which people would go crazy about if they did.

  • This2ShallPass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    14 days ago

    It is possible that any developer could just say “none” even if the extension does collect data? If it has to be manually disclosed, this won’t stop malicious actors. Only trustworthy extension developers would disclose this.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    14 days ago

    The only issue with this otherwise great idea is that “the developer says, that…”. A browser API should have a way to only grant certain rights when this is technically disclosed, e.g. an extension can only access location data if this is (formally) declared, and must be able to cope without it if the user or any global policy disallows it.