it doesn't have to be files. it could be in memory on the browser. Extensions don't imply files for anyone but the most technical of conversations. Certainly not to the laymen.

Having sensationalist titles should be called out at every opportunity.

> it doesn't have to be files. it could be in memory on the browser.

How'd that work? If it's in memory, the extensions would vanish everytime I shutdown Chrome? I'll have to reinstall all my extensions again everytime I restart Chrome?

Have you seen any browser that keeps extension in memory? Where they ask the user to reinstall their extensions everytime they start the browser?

I'm just using it as a possible example. There's also tampermonkey which installs not via files but via urls from another site.

The point is to call out the sensationalism in the title.

Reminds me of https://xkcd.com/1200/

But it's not getting access to real user data, just a partial list of things that are installed.

So are fonts. But running Window.queryLocalFonts() is not equivalent to “illegally searching your computer”.

I’m not defending the act of scanning for these extensions, and I’m of the opinion that such an API shouldn’t even exist, but just pointing out that there are perfectly legitimate APIs that reveal information that could be framed as “files installed on your computer” that are clearly not “searching your computer” like the title implies.