Title taken from this post on r/Firefox, but with the link replaced with one more relevant. The original post linked to: 13 things to know about the GDPR Relevant quote:
If the GDPR covered randomly installing sketchy, borderline-malware software, for the sake of advertising television shows, then Mozilla definitely would need to update their policices. This is a...
If the GDPR covered randomly installing sketchy, borderline-malware software, for the sake of advertising television shows, then Mozilla definitely would need to update their policices. This is a very self-congratulatory article but they're hardly perfect themselves.
I think it's fair to say it was a mistake, and that it was sketchy, but calling it "borderline-maleware" when it didn't actually do anything seems unfair. In any case, you'll be happy to know they...
I think it's fair to say it was a mistake, and that it was sketchy, but calling it "borderline-maleware" when it didn't actually do anything seems unfair.
In any case, you'll be happy to know they did update their policies, almost immediately. The only reason things didn't get fixed much faster was because the person responsible pushed it out right as an all-hands meeting was taking place, so Mozillians were traveling, meeting, and traveling home again before finding the news. When they saw the news, r/Firefox had some really, really angry Mozilla employees.
I'm happy to see that a policy change was enacted. I do remember those same /r/Firefox threads, so it doesn't surprise me that something was done - and that's a good thing. However, even if it was...
I'm happy to see that a policy change was enacted. I do remember those same /r/Firefox threads, so it doesn't surprise me that something was done - and that's a good thing.
However, even if it was rolled out disabled, the add-on had an effect that most people would view as negative. Obviously it's not malware to the same extent as a virus or worm that causes non-trivial and lasting damage, but since it had a negative effect, I do consider it to fall under the broadest definition of malware.
Title taken from this post on r/Firefox, but with the link replaced with one more relevant. The original post linked to: 13 things to know about the GDPR
Relevant quote:
Big reason I love firefox
If the GDPR covered randomly installing sketchy, borderline-malware software, for the sake of advertising television shows, then Mozilla definitely would need to update their policices. This is a very self-congratulatory article but they're hardly perfect themselves.
I think it's fair to say it was a mistake, and that it was sketchy, but calling it "borderline-maleware" when it didn't actually do anything seems unfair.
In any case, you'll be happy to know they did update their policies, almost immediately. The only reason things didn't get fixed much faster was because the person responsible pushed it out right as an all-hands meeting was taking place, so Mozillians were traveling, meeting, and traveling home again before finding the news. When they saw the news, r/Firefox had some really, really angry Mozilla employees.
I'm happy to see that a policy change was enacted. I do remember those same /r/Firefox threads, so it doesn't surprise me that something was done - and that's a good thing.
However, even if it was rolled out disabled, the add-on had an effect that most people would view as negative. Obviously it's not malware to the same extent as a virus or worm that causes non-trivial and lasting damage, but since it had a negative effect, I do consider it to fall under the broadest definition of malware.
It didn't cause damage and wasn't otherwise malicious, so I disagree, but I do see your point.