Google's 7-Year Slog To Improve Chrome Extensions Still Hasn't Satisfied Developers (theregister.com) 9
The Register's Thomas Claburn reports: Google's overhaul of Chrome's extension architecture continues to pose problems for developers of ad blockers, content filters, and privacy tools. [...] While Google's desire to improve the security, privacy, and performance of the Chrome extension platform is reasonable, its approach -- which focuses on code and permissions more than human oversight -- remains a work-in-progress that has left extension developers frustrated.
Alexei Miagkov, senior staff technology at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who oversees the organization's Privacy Badger extension, told The Register, "Making extensions under MV3 is much harder than making extensions under MV2. That's just a fact. They made things harder to build and more confusing." Miagkov said with Privacy Badger the problem has been the slowness with which Google addresses gaps in the MV3 platform. "It feels like MV3 is here and the web extensions team at Google is in no rush to fix the frayed ends, to fix what's missing or what's broken still." According to Google's documentation, "There are currently no open issues considered a critical platform gap," and various issues have been addressed through the addition of new API capabilities.
Miagkov described an unresolved problem that means Privacy Badger is unable to strip Google tracking redirects on Google sites. "We can't do it the correct way because when Google engineers design the [chrome.declarativeNetRequest API], they fail to think of this scenario," he said. "We can do a redirect to get rid of the tracking, but it ends up being a broken redirect for a lot of URLs. Basically, if the URL has any kind of query string parameters -- the question mark and anything beyond that -- we will break the link." Miagkov said a Chrome developer relations engineer had helped identify a workaround, but it's not great. Miagkov thinks these problems are of Google's own making -- the company changed the rules and has been slow to write the new ones. "It was completely predictable because they moved the ability to fix things from extensions to themselves," he said. "And now they need to fix things and they're not doing it."
Alexei Miagkov, senior staff technology at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who oversees the organization's Privacy Badger extension, told The Register, "Making extensions under MV3 is much harder than making extensions under MV2. That's just a fact. They made things harder to build and more confusing." Miagkov said with Privacy Badger the problem has been the slowness with which Google addresses gaps in the MV3 platform. "It feels like MV3 is here and the web extensions team at Google is in no rush to fix the frayed ends, to fix what's missing or what's broken still." According to Google's documentation, "There are currently no open issues considered a critical platform gap," and various issues have been addressed through the addition of new API capabilities.
Miagkov described an unresolved problem that means Privacy Badger is unable to strip Google tracking redirects on Google sites. "We can't do it the correct way because when Google engineers design the [chrome.declarativeNetRequest API], they fail to think of this scenario," he said. "We can do a redirect to get rid of the tracking, but it ends up being a broken redirect for a lot of URLs. Basically, if the URL has any kind of query string parameters -- the question mark and anything beyond that -- we will break the link." Miagkov said a Chrome developer relations engineer had helped identify a workaround, but it's not great. Miagkov thinks these problems are of Google's own making -- the company changed the rules and has been slow to write the new ones. "It was completely predictable because they moved the ability to fix things from extensions to themselves," he said. "And now they need to fix things and they're not doing it."
instead of intentionally breaking extensions? (Score:1)
google is too busy fighting anti-competitive war against adblockers to bother actually improving chrome.
Conflict of interest (Score:2)
The only extensions anyone cares about, Google has lots of incentive for them to break. Maybe don't get your ad-dodging machine from an ad company?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is a clear case of "follow the money"...
As awful as Firefox is... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's still the best option around. Ublock Origin, Privacy Badger, and Bypass Paywalls Clean make a pretty killer trio. I just wish they'd restore about:config to Android release.
let's run google through translate (Score:2)
Who wouldda thunk it? (Score:2)
>'"they moved the ability to fix things from extensions to themselves," he said. "And now they need to fix things and they're not doing it."'
Really? Who could have predicted that? Why would they do such a thing? I mean, it is almost like another major conflict of interest from a monopolistic overlord.
Meanwhile, as always:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/... [mozilla.org]
If you claim to care about security... (Score:2)
If you claim to care about privacy and security, and you use Chrome as your primary browser... you're not actually serious about privacy and security.
"Ad company with most popular browser hates... (Score:4, Funny)
... ad blockers. Film at 11."
Does anyone take Google seriously about its neutering of extensions as being "for the benefit of user privacy and security"?
In Google's Best Interests (Score:2)