I meant the behaviour of this API:
http://adblockplus.org/en/nsIAdblockPlu ... bscription
Easylist Vs. Noscript?!
Can that be turned off.Dr. Evil wrote:I meant the behaviour of this API:
http://adblockplus.org/en/nsIAdblockPlu ... bscription
I mean this part "It allows to manage external subscriptions for example."
Is it possible to turn that off?
-
Wladimir Palant
What Dr.Evil said - once you installed an extension you gave it permission to do whatever it wants with your browser configuration. Making it harder for other extensions to manipulate ABP preferences is not a solution, in the end an extension can always overwrite patterns.ini (or change extensions.adblockplus.enabled pref).
-
McGyver008
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:31 pm
- Location: Germany, Baden-Wuerttemberg
- Contact:
An AddOn is able to, but...
...in fact it only does, what it's developer wants it to do (if bug free...). Giorgio Maone decided to manipulate, decided to use his knowledge in an extremely egoistic way. NoScript was (ok, for many people it is still) known as one of the most important AddOns in respect to security online. To manipulate especially such a piece of software in the given way is much more than a peccadillo - in some aspects it tends to be fraud. This might sound exaggerated, but as I told: Think of a police officer, 'representing law and order', but in his own district he deals with drugs himself (means: As long as he is the one who gains, everything is alright).
I only can say this: I principally distrust a person who defrauds a few million people without to to bat an eyelid. Such a person has demonstrated to be an offender who has acted on grounds of conscience.
On this basis I only can and will avoid all of his so called 'work'.
I only can say this: I principally distrust a person who defrauds a few million people without to to bat an eyelid. Such a person has demonstrated to be an offender who has acted on grounds of conscience.
On this basis I only can and will avoid all of his so called 'work'.
I'm afraid this is what happens when you rely on ads for your living. You have to push more and more. I've added and removed NoScript (going back and forth) several times over the years, ever since he's gotten more aggressive with his ads. Like opening a page with his ads on it when you install or update his extension. To me that crossed a line.. I know it can be disabled so don't bother telling me this, I still think it was over board. I still think he's a good guy he's just headed down the path that leads to the dark side of the force. 
Will he come back? I don't know..but for now his work is all suspect as far as I'm concerned.
What attracted me to Firefox in the first place is giving me more control over my Internet experience. This is NOT what he did in his latest moves. I'm sure he felt justified because he has to 'feed his family' but I hear that same thing from the websites that we block ads on all the time. So from my point of view he is now in the same category as them..and he is the one that put himself there..no one else. Sorry man, you are headed down a path I can not follow.
Will he come back? I don't know..but for now his work is all suspect as far as I'm concerned. What attracted me to Firefox in the first place is giving me more control over my Internet experience. This is NOT what he did in his latest moves. I'm sure he felt justified because he has to 'feed his family' but I hear that same thing from the websites that we block ads on all the time. So from my point of view he is now in the same category as them..and he is the one that put himself there..no one else. Sorry man, you are headed down a path I can not follow.
-
McGyver008
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:31 pm
- Location: Germany, Baden-Wuerttemberg
- Contact:
Sorry, IceDogg - that's tooo easy!
No, IceDogg I disagree. We all have to earn money. Have you read www.maone.net? If you did, you surely can tell me how poor a lecturer/professor at a university in Palermo is, right? And this is - according to his own website - for sure not his only income.
I bet, not every FF-AddOn developer is in Maone's position. He will hardly be dependent on the money he earns with those AddOn's.
This is the major reason for my anger. There are persons out there who never can get enough. Most of the correct people keep their correctness. Many people play with the idea of living their knowledge to realize egoistic plans. No idea why, but he made this latter thing reality - and as long as he is on this trip I avoid his 'work'.
Even if his statement of this dubious 'attack' against one of his sites would happened exactly like he told (if this statement is the pure truth), does this give him the right to manipulate every Firefox user's machine even though more than 99% of these users don't even know a bit about this so called reason (and for sure almost none of them was one of the real attackers!)?
You know what? His statements sounds like as if they are very lame excuses for his wish to get more money. BTW, NoScript's manipulating began not yesterday... What came first? His first manipulation or this ominous 'attack'?
And my last statement: If every AddOn developer begins to think like Maone, Mozilla's AddOn idea will die very soon, since nobody knows which AddOn manipulates what. If he really believes, his AddOn is that essential for every Firefox and he wants to earn money on this basis, why doesn't he make it shareware? He will see very soon, what the users think about his conviction. But he is intelligent enough to know, this will never work! So he tries the incorrect (but seemingly easier) way. In my eyes he deserves no understanding simply for the unfair way of increasing his income (which is surely not too low anyhow!) - especially with his undoubtedly high developed intellect which gives him enough opportunities to earn money on a correct way!
No, sorry - no excuses!
I bet, not every FF-AddOn developer is in Maone's position. He will hardly be dependent on the money he earns with those AddOn's.
This is the major reason for my anger. There are persons out there who never can get enough. Most of the correct people keep their correctness. Many people play with the idea of living their knowledge to realize egoistic plans. No idea why, but he made this latter thing reality - and as long as he is on this trip I avoid his 'work'.
Even if his statement of this dubious 'attack' against one of his sites would happened exactly like he told (if this statement is the pure truth), does this give him the right to manipulate every Firefox user's machine even though more than 99% of these users don't even know a bit about this so called reason (and for sure almost none of them was one of the real attackers!)?
You know what? His statements sounds like as if they are very lame excuses for his wish to get more money. BTW, NoScript's manipulating began not yesterday... What came first? His first manipulation or this ominous 'attack'?
And my last statement: If every AddOn developer begins to think like Maone, Mozilla's AddOn idea will die very soon, since nobody knows which AddOn manipulates what. If he really believes, his AddOn is that essential for every Firefox and he wants to earn money on this basis, why doesn't he make it shareware? He will see very soon, what the users think about his conviction. But he is intelligent enough to know, this will never work! So he tries the incorrect (but seemingly easier) way. In my eyes he deserves no understanding simply for the unfair way of increasing his income (which is surely not too low anyhow!) - especially with his undoubtedly high developed intellect which gives him enough opportunities to earn money on a correct way!
No, sorry - no excuses!
-
McGyver008
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:31 pm
- Location: Germany, Baden-Wuerttemberg
- Contact:
It's not that I feel like a judge, don't misunderstand me.
My point of view is this:
As a software developer you are responsible for your work. And as a correct person you are committed to ask a user for permission to change something in his/her system which was not made by you and which also was nor directly neither indirectly installed by you or your software. Maone did never ask for this permission - he made it. Be it some malware or simply a few changes in the configuration in another piece of software (which changes its behavior against those one which it is/was made for - here it makes AdBlockPlus stop working on some sites), he did never ask if he or his software is allowed to do it. This is a principle and he broke this principle (BTW a principle of common respect against each other!).
The trustworthiness of a person depends heavily on the persons will to respect limits. Maone did what he thinks to be correct, ok, his manipulation isn't harmful. But watching him, the next developer will go further, won't stop simply with whitelisting, but possibly disable a function in a piece of software he don't like. His excuse is very simple: "Others do it the same way." - and you know what? He is absolutely right!
A principle only is it worth to be a principle if there is absolutely no way out! As soon as you drill wholes in a principle - making a piece of Emmentaler out of it - it is useless, not more than simply something for soothing someones conscience.
I understand in some points the arguments of Giorgio Maone, but I dislike the way he realized his way of judging and acting!
As a software developer you are responsible for your work. And as a correct person you are committed to ask a user for permission to change something in his/her system which was not made by you and which also was nor directly neither indirectly installed by you or your software. Maone did never ask for this permission - he made it. Be it some malware or simply a few changes in the configuration in another piece of software (which changes its behavior against those one which it is/was made for - here it makes AdBlockPlus stop working on some sites), he did never ask if he or his software is allowed to do it. This is a principle and he broke this principle (BTW a principle of common respect against each other!).
The trustworthiness of a person depends heavily on the persons will to respect limits. Maone did what he thinks to be correct, ok, his manipulation isn't harmful. But watching him, the next developer will go further, won't stop simply with whitelisting, but possibly disable a function in a piece of software he don't like. His excuse is very simple: "Others do it the same way." - and you know what? He is absolutely right!
A principle only is it worth to be a principle if there is absolutely no way out! As soon as you drill wholes in a principle - making a piece of Emmentaler out of it - it is useless, not more than simply something for soothing someones conscience.
I understand in some points the arguments of Giorgio Maone, but I dislike the way he realized his way of judging and acting!
-
HelenG
Ok I understand people have to earn money (hence jobs / going out to work) but last time I checked doing it underhand in the way he did (with that filter for ABP) is illegal and /or totally immoral.
I white listed his site ages ago and you on NS, all smooth so why did this happen? Why not put a please white list this site note up or PP button and the like.
I thought add-ons were built by people for nothing out of the kindness of their heart / appreciation of the browser / people etc.
I use these apps to keep my pc (I have children) safe from the disgusting adverts, if a site is nice and trustworthy it gets white listed but the number of times they have not been!
I've used ABP for the longest and will be sticking with ABP only from now on. I feel aggrieved for you Wladimir and those of us who use ABP, just showing support esp. after the upsetting news of Rick.
Thanks for a great add-on that keeps us moral people from being hit with immoral adverts.
Also for keeping a 192mb of ram, running win xp home, able to surf the net without crashing.
Thanks again Wladimir and ABP team
I white listed his site ages ago and you on NS, all smooth so why did this happen? Why not put a please white list this site note up or PP button and the like.
I thought add-ons were built by people for nothing out of the kindness of their heart / appreciation of the browser / people etc.
I use these apps to keep my pc (I have children) safe from the disgusting adverts, if a site is nice and trustworthy it gets white listed but the number of times they have not been!
I've used ABP for the longest and will be sticking with ABP only from now on. I feel aggrieved for you Wladimir and those of us who use ABP, just showing support esp. after the upsetting news of Rick.
Thanks for a great add-on that keeps us moral people from being hit with immoral adverts.
Also for keeping a 192mb of ram, running win xp home, able to surf the net without crashing.
Thanks again Wladimir and ABP team
-
Lyx
Some food for thought to those people, who call for "strong sandboxing" of extensions:
You should remember what extensions do in the first place. Extensions are not just applications seperated from the browser-runtime. They aren't isolated islands. Rather, extensions run INSIDE the browser runtime and have more or less full access to it, so that they can modify the browser however they like. You dont like that? Well, if you remove the ability to modify the browser, then what is left of the idea of firefox extensions?
Ignoring implementation costs and dev resources, the most one could do, is making it so that extensions may not modify each other, but may modify the rest of the browser - but wait, WHERE is an extension? Do you think its the GUI and stuff which you see of them? Nope, thats the parts of the BROWSER which they modified. Strictly spoken, the extension itself, is at most its code and its own datastore... NOT the GUI and things which you see.
So, to get to the point: Even if you sandbox extensions from each other, that changes absolutely nothing about their ability to modify what you see on the screen, however they like. So what did you gain by that sandboxing? I'd say: you protected the extensions own data and code, nothing more. The behaviour of the browser at runtime still is a playground. And it has to be, because as i explained earlier, modifying that "playground" is the whole point of extensions. But you see, a tool is just a tool... not what it is used for. You cannot design a hammer so that it can only be used for building stuff, not for murdering someone.
I can imagine what will be the next question then: "Well, if we cannot make it impossible, then it needs to be forbidden. We need to create policemen (AMO), so that they protect us from the evil men."
Well, while that approach is slightly better, it still isn't efficient. You may be able to reduce potential abuse that way, but all those "it needs to be forbidden"-approaches have one thing in common: They seek a replacement for YOU.
What do i mean with that? Well, when i say "you", then you will first understand this "you" as a "person". But what i mean is actually your consciousness. What does a consciousness do? Well, it receives information, analyzes it, makes decisions and then gets feedback (responsibility) and the cycle begins anew. You may now think that i'm getting carried far away here, and that it has nothing to do with the topic, but i will show you soon, that it is actually the core issue at hand here.
Why is there so much malware out there - even by "credible" vendors - compared to... lets say 1995? You may think that its because of sheer quantity - back then, it wasn't as profitable because there were less users. I answer to this: Well, if this is the case, then why is it that most of nowadays malware wouldn't have had a chance back then - because the USERS would have been mostly resistent to it?
The kind of users of computers nowadays, is different than back then in 1995. Different in which way? Well, to keep it short: Its mostly users who have no interest in having just enough understanding of the tools which they use, so that they can make efficient DECISIONS and take RESPONSIBILITY for those. Rather, they want OTHERS to make decisions for them, and take care of responsibility. Notice the link to calling for the "police"?
But, why are the aspects of personal decision and responsibility so relevant to the malware topic? Well, consider the following which i previously posted in the blog-thread:
------
The road from fairware to malware, and from mutuality to parasitism:
1. “Hi, i have this and that feature and do it this and that way. If you are looking for something which does this and that, then i can do that. I can however not to this and that and there are better solutions for such cases. Anyways, if what i can do is useful for you, then you can manually download and install me here…”
2. “Hi, i’m really cool, because i can do this and that. Regardless of your actual needs, its certain that you benefit from using my services, because i’m good for ANYBODY. Download and install here…”
3. “Hi, i won all those awards, have a colorful and blinky website and offer these totally awesome features. YOU NEED ME! Click here to install fully-automated!”
4. “Hi, i’m like totally awesome and automatically run as a webapp with access to the operating system. Did i mention already that you should buy me, because i’m like totally awesome, regardless of what you need or want? Oh, and also try our other like totally awesome products, because else you will be a total loser and your computer will explode. DO WHAT I SAY DAMNIT!”
5. “Hi, i’m your new crap-adviser, buy…” “WTF? How did you get installed?” “Shutup, i have just downloaded these like totally great offers, based on your usage-stats, and installed them. Now, click here to register them! No, forget it, you wont remove me. Your decision doesnt matter! Do what i say damnit!”
6. “Hi, i just turned your machine into a remote control which can be commanded however we like. Of course, you wont be able to read this message, because i made sure to integrate into the OS as deep as possible so that i’m not only unremovable but also invisible.”
7. “Can you say ‘Hypervisor-Mode’?”
-----
Notice a trend? The red thread through the above development, is removing the decision and responsibility from someone. It is about stripping an individual from his ability to decide - about taking away what is the job of a consciousness in the first place. It is an invasion.
When you have an entire environment full of people who want others to decide for them, then that is nothing else than a paradise for abusive parasites. Most nowadays PC-Users want to be told what to do and when enough people go into that role, it doesn't take long for abuse to appear, because metaphorically phrased, there is no immune system anymore.
Of course this is something for which there is no "quick fix". Its nothing which can be solved with a handful of applications or app-modifications. Still, i would throw the question into the thread: Would in the mid-term it probably be more efficient, to put more effort into education, rather than creating more replacements and compensations for the lack of user-ability to make educated decisions?
- Lyx
You should remember what extensions do in the first place. Extensions are not just applications seperated from the browser-runtime. They aren't isolated islands. Rather, extensions run INSIDE the browser runtime and have more or less full access to it, so that they can modify the browser however they like. You dont like that? Well, if you remove the ability to modify the browser, then what is left of the idea of firefox extensions?
Ignoring implementation costs and dev resources, the most one could do, is making it so that extensions may not modify each other, but may modify the rest of the browser - but wait, WHERE is an extension? Do you think its the GUI and stuff which you see of them? Nope, thats the parts of the BROWSER which they modified. Strictly spoken, the extension itself, is at most its code and its own datastore... NOT the GUI and things which you see.
So, to get to the point: Even if you sandbox extensions from each other, that changes absolutely nothing about their ability to modify what you see on the screen, however they like. So what did you gain by that sandboxing? I'd say: you protected the extensions own data and code, nothing more. The behaviour of the browser at runtime still is a playground. And it has to be, because as i explained earlier, modifying that "playground" is the whole point of extensions. But you see, a tool is just a tool... not what it is used for. You cannot design a hammer so that it can only be used for building stuff, not for murdering someone.
I can imagine what will be the next question then: "Well, if we cannot make it impossible, then it needs to be forbidden. We need to create policemen (AMO), so that they protect us from the evil men."
Well, while that approach is slightly better, it still isn't efficient. You may be able to reduce potential abuse that way, but all those "it needs to be forbidden"-approaches have one thing in common: They seek a replacement for YOU.
What do i mean with that? Well, when i say "you", then you will first understand this "you" as a "person". But what i mean is actually your consciousness. What does a consciousness do? Well, it receives information, analyzes it, makes decisions and then gets feedback (responsibility) and the cycle begins anew. You may now think that i'm getting carried far away here, and that it has nothing to do with the topic, but i will show you soon, that it is actually the core issue at hand here.
Why is there so much malware out there - even by "credible" vendors - compared to... lets say 1995? You may think that its because of sheer quantity - back then, it wasn't as profitable because there were less users. I answer to this: Well, if this is the case, then why is it that most of nowadays malware wouldn't have had a chance back then - because the USERS would have been mostly resistent to it?
The kind of users of computers nowadays, is different than back then in 1995. Different in which way? Well, to keep it short: Its mostly users who have no interest in having just enough understanding of the tools which they use, so that they can make efficient DECISIONS and take RESPONSIBILITY for those. Rather, they want OTHERS to make decisions for them, and take care of responsibility. Notice the link to calling for the "police"?
But, why are the aspects of personal decision and responsibility so relevant to the malware topic? Well, consider the following which i previously posted in the blog-thread:
------
The road from fairware to malware, and from mutuality to parasitism:
1. “Hi, i have this and that feature and do it this and that way. If you are looking for something which does this and that, then i can do that. I can however not to this and that and there are better solutions for such cases. Anyways, if what i can do is useful for you, then you can manually download and install me here…”
2. “Hi, i’m really cool, because i can do this and that. Regardless of your actual needs, its certain that you benefit from using my services, because i’m good for ANYBODY. Download and install here…”
3. “Hi, i won all those awards, have a colorful and blinky website and offer these totally awesome features. YOU NEED ME! Click here to install fully-automated!”
4. “Hi, i’m like totally awesome and automatically run as a webapp with access to the operating system. Did i mention already that you should buy me, because i’m like totally awesome, regardless of what you need or want? Oh, and also try our other like totally awesome products, because else you will be a total loser and your computer will explode. DO WHAT I SAY DAMNIT!”
5. “Hi, i’m your new crap-adviser, buy…” “WTF? How did you get installed?” “Shutup, i have just downloaded these like totally great offers, based on your usage-stats, and installed them. Now, click here to register them! No, forget it, you wont remove me. Your decision doesnt matter! Do what i say damnit!”
6. “Hi, i just turned your machine into a remote control which can be commanded however we like. Of course, you wont be able to read this message, because i made sure to integrate into the OS as deep as possible so that i’m not only unremovable but also invisible.”
7. “Can you say ‘Hypervisor-Mode’?”
-----
Notice a trend? The red thread through the above development, is removing the decision and responsibility from someone. It is about stripping an individual from his ability to decide - about taking away what is the job of a consciousness in the first place. It is an invasion.
When you have an entire environment full of people who want others to decide for them, then that is nothing else than a paradise for abusive parasites. Most nowadays PC-Users want to be told what to do and when enough people go into that role, it doesn't take long for abuse to appear, because metaphorically phrased, there is no immune system anymore.
Of course this is something for which there is no "quick fix". Its nothing which can be solved with a handful of applications or app-modifications. Still, i would throw the question into the thread: Would in the mid-term it probably be more efficient, to put more effort into education, rather than creating more replacements and compensations for the lack of user-ability to make educated decisions?
- Lyx
-
I_give_up
What No Script did was wrong. Period.
That being said, No Script is the one add-on that is a must use for all. It keeps you as safe in case you fat finger a site name. It keeps you safe from firefox exploits. It buys you beer. Well, 2 out of 3.
Yes, it is a pain in the rear to temporarily allow scripts, sometimes 3-4 times per site, for that security but it is worth the pain.
Yes, he takes a credibility hit here but if I have to choose 1 add in, it must be No Script.
That being said, No Script is the one add-on that is a must use for all. It keeps you as safe in case you fat finger a site name. It keeps you safe from firefox exploits. It buys you beer. Well, 2 out of 3.
Yes, it is a pain in the rear to temporarily allow scripts, sometimes 3-4 times per site, for that security but it is worth the pain.
Yes, he takes a credibility hit here but if I have to choose 1 add in, it must be No Script.