[moritzwarhier]

Already commented something similar in another thread:

Why is the security policy for extensions still not architected like other web permissions?

There has been a shift on mobile already from "take it or leave it"-style permissions on install towards more fine grained control not overidable by the app manifest.

I think Browser extensions should behave similarly. Especially when it comes to which origins an extensions is allowed to act on.

The user should be able to restrict this regardless of the manifest, even forced to do.

Extensions that need to act on all or an unknown set of origins should require a big and scary prompt after installation, regardless of what the user agrees to during installation.

I say this as a happy user of uBlock origin and React DevTools.

But for the common user the default should be to deny permissions and require user interaction.

[dylan604]

you can make a warning as big and scary as you can, and people will just blindly hit accept/agree/ok. the look/design of the banner is not what will stop people from hitting ok, as at this point, i don't think anything will

[hsbauauvhabzb]

While this is historically true, if the text is human readable - ‘may be able to read and transmit to a third party any data you input, including credit card numbers and passwords’ - is fairly likely to raise awareness. It’s not effect, but it’s better than nothing.

It’s worth contrasting clear communication such as the above to a EULA designed by scummy companies to not be read, browsers presumably have nothing to gain by exposing malicious plugins, so they’re a good candidate for the former.

If only we could get Mozilla executive to implement something actually useful instead of whatever meme tech they’ve lost their nut over this week, that’d be nice.

[tweetle_beetle]

In isolation this is true, but for most people they just want the product the extension is offering - skipping past boring warnings is a means to an end. There is also the issue of warning fatigue when extension authors normalise asking for more permissions - more warnings leads to less engagement.

One way to avoid this would be to have an extension market which highlights alternative extensions and how they differ in permissions. But it would be hard to maintain those relationships, create a new oppportunity to game trust, push responsibility onto the market owners, etc. And ultimately, many interact with proprietary products without a direct competitor e.g. if FAANGs made them. So I can't see it happening.

[klyrs]

Click 'agree' on the next 3 prompts within 15 seconds to see a monkey throwing an ice cream cone at King Charles

[hgsgm]

Mobile doesn't give you control over which origins it contacts.

[moritzwarhier]

Yes you are right, that came down to me after I hit the submit button. But consider my train of thought more an associative one.

I'd like an UI similar to the mobile one. I brought up the origin thing because for lots of extensions I would like that kind of UI for origin control. Origin control is part of WebExtension API, but it's during installation, which forces even well-meaning developers to request overly broad permissions for some kinds of extensions.