12/31/2023 0 Comments Auto tab suspender firefox addon![]() "Standards" are completely unnecessary except for the de facto standards of MasterCard and Visa that predated the web. Payments were never the problem they're sometimes made out to be. ![]() Online commerce has always been very healthy and pervasive almost since the beginning of the web. > The prime mover behind the rise of adtech was lack of any standards or easy usage for payment acceptance on the Internet. When the software is paid, the new owner has an opportunity to make money legitimately, without secretly exploiting the existing user base. But if the software is paid upfront, the expectation is that the new owner will perhaps do a better job of maintaining and marketing the software, and that's why the new owner buys it. ![]() Of course, paid upfront software gets sold to new owners too. I feel that money is essential to both the problem and the solution. Perhaps we all need to stop taking it for granted that browser extensions ought to be free? Or maybe the browser vendors themselves can find ways of financially supporting extension authors. It's perfectly understandable how someone who is doing a lot of work for no pay will eventually get tired of it or have other priorities in life, which is what happened in this case. If the only way to monetize an extension is to exploit its users for data, this kind of thing is going to keep happening. Unfortunately, Chrome has recently made the situation worse by deprecating Chrome Web Store payments, and Firefox eliminated their paid extension store several years ago. Even very popular extensions have a hard time monetizing. Most of these problems occur when a reputable extension gets sold to a less reputable owner, frequently for a relatively small amount of money (4-5 figures). We need to talk about how difficult it is to monetize browser extensions. Follow good security practices, or your insurance premiums go up. They shouldn't be able to externalize costs like this. I firmly believe in civil liability for software companies which ship insecure products. Given that the bulk of Google's business model is built on mass surveillance for advertising, with users-as-statistics, this isn't too surprising, but it's something to be aware of if you use Google. I can't have Android give a dummy location or otherwise If an app asks for filesystem, maps, and other permissions, you need to agree to run the app. (5) Doesn't allow any sort of reasonable sandboxing of Android apps. When malware is discovered, users have no way to know what it did. ![]() Fortunately, unlike Android, it lets users know, but given the target market, many can't afford to upgrade. If your account was compromised, you have no way to do audits to understand what happened without $$$, which leads to many more attackers. (2) Hold back security tools for Google Apps without a premium subscription. (1) Silently disable Android updates, leaving many running exploitable phones This sort of change is reasonable, but completely outside of Google's psyche. My experience is that Google cares deeply about its own security, but not much about the security of its users. git has secure hashes, and things can't change when you're not looking.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |