This isn't the case for extensions and I think it's become clear over the years it can't be fixed with various trust knobs so they're left with fiddling with the capabilities/trying to fix the overly permissive design.

I've made browser extensions and I find it difficult to make an informed decision!

Either it is my device that I own and I can make decisions for or it isn't, and if it doesn't belong to me then who does it belong to?

Hence software publication tied to real-world identity, sandboxing to reduce access to local sensitive data, entitlements to enumerate needs for local capabilities and a review process both to restrict unnecessary entitlements and put additional non-technically-enforceable restrictions on software.

Maybe if GDPR-like regulations were not laxly enforced or non-existent, the platforms would need to do less policing themselves.

I feel like the real solution here is simply to pop up a big scary warning whenever you try to install an extension that says: "Hey, this extension will be able to read and/or modify your internet traffic. It could steal your bank account information. Are you really sure you trust the developer of this thing that much?".

Or, you could make two tiers of extensions, where one tier is the "harmless" tier that can't actually do anything with requests and responses or modify the DOM, and the other is the "advanced" tier that displays the big scary warning above.

But, honestly, that should be about it. There are a few things we need to remember for some context, IMO:

* 99% (made up number) of web users don't install extensions, anyway. This is more true the less savvy the person is. * A web browser isn't going to stop the user from downloading virus.exe or from installing SpyBrowserMaxx.app on their computers, so how much effort is really reasonable to try to prevent users from installing bad extensions? * Hindering good extensions, like uBlockOrigin, actively HARMS the privacy and security of browser users.

Let's not be tricked into giving up our own ability to fight against tracking and spying for the mythical Grandma who installs browser extensions from sketchy side-channels (is that even possible anymore in either Chrome or Firefox?).

Does it though? The webRequest API still exists in MV3, but as read-only. So if you're interested in snooping everything you still can.

> That’s because Manifest V3 doesn’t change the observational APIs available to extensions. (For extension developers, that means Manifest V3 isn’t changing the observational parts of chrome.webRequest.) In other words, Manifest V3 will still allow extensions to observe the same data as before, including what URLs users visit and the contents of pages users visit.[1]

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/07/googles-plans-chrome-e...

You can still opt into having your data stolen, but now it's no longer a requirement for adblocking.

Manifest V3 doesn't get rid of the permissions that allow an extension to spy on you.

Yes, you can choose not to install extensions that use those permissions (although the current webextension permissions system is chock-full of holes and Manifest V3 still has many of those holes). But you can already make that choice. You can go to Firefox and install Ublock Origin Lite right now today if you want to make that choice: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...

It's available on both Chrome and Firefox and you can install it and only grant it the blocking permission and nothing else.

Removing the blocking web request API in Manifest V3 does nothing to improve security. It doesn't offer you new choices, it just removes your choice to use a more powerful adblocker if you need one.

Yes, but extensions have to go through review to be in supported channels, and review will absolutely look at over-entitlement of submitted extensions.

Okay, then Google can use that same review process for apps that request access to the blocking API. If you've decided to trust the review process to ferret out unneeded permissions, then copying Firefox's model and having a `blocking` permission should be fine.

Either way, removing blocking webRequests isn't improving anyone's privacy. The same review process is required that would have been required before, and the same kind of spying is possible when that review process fails.

No? OK so it's just another land grab taking more from users and giving it to Google. The enshitification continues, and apparently we should thank Google for the privilege.

The existence of malicious extensions is worth having that ability.

This, but Apple's changes are just as bad and should be used as evidence of how this kind of restriction can go wrong, not how it can go right.

Adblocking capabilities on Safari are unarguably weaker than they are on Chrome and Firefox. People will occasionally get upset at me when I say this, but it's really not debatable, there is a reason why uBlock Origin is not on Safari. There is a reason why the best adblocking apps for Safari run as desktop applications and then communicate with an extension.

Safari has a ton of other great privacy features, but adblocking is not one of them.

> That's the point - it restricts the ability for extensions to monitor, snoop, and steal content from every website you browse.

Most of the changes in Manifest V3 are actually pretty good, especially changes around the permission models. Active click is great, the optional permissions improvements are good. I understand why people are phrasing this as "Manifest V3" because you need a name for it, but I hope it's not lost in this conversation that Firefox is also moving forward with its own implementation of Manifest V3 and it has the vast majority of the privacy improvements and almost none of the downsides.

Getting rid of blocking request handlers doesn't really improve privacy. Active tab permissions improves privacy. When people talk about Manifest V3 being bad, what they usually mean is the extra restrictions Google has imposed on top of the privacy stuff, restrictions that do very little if anything to improve privacy (seriously, it is still trivial to spy on users using Chrome's Manifest V3 across all sites) but that cripple adblockers.

It's possible to get the privacy improvements without the downsides.

This is the only supported model for web extensions under Safari. There are no pure JavaScript distributions, they must be in an app.

Adguard was (I haven't checked in a while, maybe it still is) one of the more popular Safari content blockers for Mac, and it shipped with an Electron app -- and one that had to actually be running with a tray icon and everything at the same time as the browser.

This is not a model that any other browser maker should be trying to copy. I feel like if we're looking at browser adblockers and they're setting up system trays and system-level proxies just so they can do basic stuff like HTML rewriting, then that's not something the browser maker should be proud of. Congrats, people can't spy on your browser's web-traffic anymore, instead they have to MITM their entire computer.

It's possible to make something so restrictive that the end result is that people are actually less secure, because they're forced to compromise security at much lower levels in order to get that basic functionality back. Safari's current extension ecosystem is a great example of that.

Well, we know Apple's answer to that...

Tangentially, I remember how utterly disgusted I was when I first started seeing people on Reddit chastising others for rooting their Android phones. They'd keep saying that it's a "security risk" for me to have root... on MY device. I can feel my blood pressure rising just from typing that...