Hacker News Reader

Comment by myztic | Hacker News Reader

Yep, but since Google's whole business model revolves around monetizing user information, I am not surprised about this article. Google's Motto is "Data Collection for monetary purposes is not evil".

Think about Android Application Permissions for example, I am not sure whether or not you now can revoke permissions one by one on your own (think I read something about this), but for how long was this not possible?

View on HN

This has nothing to do with Google's business model. This is about the business model of extension developers.

It's also what the Platform allows the Extension Developers to do and the users not to do.

One Example? I have been disabling what Apps get access to on my Blackberry for I don't know how long. Forbid Whatsapp to have Access to the Camera? No Problem, if I want to make a photo from within Whatsapp it then says something that it isn't capable of doing so, just how it should be.

How a Browser behaves in private Browsing also is a browser-side issue. Whether or not the API allows Extension developers to give users the functionality NoScript for example provides to its users it also a browser-side issue.

See for example here (you won't see Google spearheading this cause) http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/14/mozilla-makes-private-brows...

The distinction between "This concerns only the Extensions" and "this concerns only the browser itself" is not as clear and easy as you say it is, especially in this case.

Since Google is all about obtaining information and using it, I don't think they are to be trusted in developing a browser that is highly concerned with user's privacy. Everybody has to make their own decision.

So do you feel like Google Chrome as a platform is not giving you enough information about what the Google Chrome extensions are doing and not giving users enough power to act on such information?

Also about firefox from the comments in this discussion by zetafunction: zetafunction 5 hours ago:

    From the article:
    Are Firefox extensions any better?
    To be honest, no.

This isn't about Google's business model - which by the way isnt as terrible as you make it seem. Unless you'd like to start paying them for all their services, how exactly do you think they should make money?

I actually pay money for E-Mail for example, I think many would be happy to pay for GMail if they would offer the option of "No Ads, and we don't use your information at all", but since Google has perfected the business with information, they rather have that than get money, so... I also want to make clear: This of course is highly subjective, like I said, I have an issue with this, some don't and that is perfectly fine, the world doesn't revolve around me and as long as there are alternatives...

But Google certainly is a company solely built upon obtaining user information and using that information as efficient as possibly, that is their right, and it is my right to not approve of this, state my opinion, and use something else / block their services :)

Would you agree that the article is focusing on companies/programmers making extensions and ignoring their users' privacy, which might harm the users if they store their users information (access keys) in a database?

So, imagine if you were an elite hacker and I have an extension that I made in Google Chrome that asked for users authentication keys and I stored that in a database. Then you figured out where my database is located. If your best friend uses my chrome extension, would you suggest to your best friend to use my chrome extension?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com