Comment by tadfisher
7 hours ago
"Read and change data on all websites" does not, to me, imply "make network requests on the user's behalf". Yes, I can put on my developer hat and surmise that, under the hood, the extension's injected payload can make network requests by adding <script> elements to the DOM. No user will ever understand this, no matter how much you try to educate them through the permission prompt.
This ends up being significantly worse than any other widely-used permissions system, because injected scripts act as the website, not the extension. If you've already granted location permission to a website, then it is effectively granted to the extension. There is no other ecosystem that works like this.
And to do basically anything worthwhile, including certain types of content blocking, you need this God permission that essentially disables the WebExtension permissions system. This should never have been greenlit in the first place.
>"Read and change data on all websites" does not, to me, imply "make network requests on the user's behalf"
Yeah, I don't like this phrasing either, I think it downplays the risk to a dangerous degree (which is "it can see and do literally anything on any site you visit", which is GIGANTIC). It's one of the worst permissions to request, but it doesn't look like it.
But other permissions systems don't have per-site controls, or the ability to turn things off until activated, or isolate everything, or... the list is huge, others generally have permissions like "can access this folder [and others we haven't told you] [and folders you give it access to, which you can't revoke later https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47719602] [and only for applications which opt into this, normal ones can do anything anywhere any time]...." which is much worse.