this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2025
490 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
76945 readers
3017 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Already exists. And you're basically spreading misinformation.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/permission-request-messages-firefox-extensions#w_access-your-location
So what does this new change do then? Is it just about disclosing the state to the user?
So, sandbox the extensions, a practical, sensible step on the path to browser as OS (contentious, but doesn't that seem where things are going, and if we lose firefox...). I get it, it's mr right now harm minimization, as opposed to mr right (linux or flatpak) general purpose computers in service of their users with usable security control.