←back to thread

Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser

(support.mozilla.org)
757 points shak77 | 5 comments | 15 Dec 17 13:47 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
blauditore ◴[15 Dec 17 16:23 UTC] No.15932880[source]▶
Many people seem to be shocked because Mozilla installed an add-on automatically. In my opinion, it doesn't really matter since the code is coming from Mozilla - they're building the whole browser, so they could introduce functionality anywhere. If someone distrusts their add-ons, why trust their browser at all?

The main question is what behavior is being introduced. I haven't researched deeply, but apparently the add-on does nothing until the user opts-in on studies.

replies(16): >>15932942 #>>15932953 #>>15932998 #>>15932999 #>>15933001 #>>15933342 #>>15933599 #>>15933649 #>>15933656 #>>15933806 #>>15933901 #>>15934475 #>>15934693 #>>15935133 #>>15935703 #>>15941934 #
skymt ◴[15 Dec 17 16:32 UTC] No.15932953[source]▶
Speaking for myself here, but I'm not concerned that Mozilla might push malware into Firefox installations. I'm concerned about the lack of judgement in pushing an extension with a vague, scary-sounding name and description simply for a cross-marketing tie-in, and I'm worried that it could have damaged the trust ordinary users have in Firefox.
replies(5): >>15933006 #>>15933291 #>>15934516 #>>15934671 #>>15935418 #
pmlnr ◴[15 Dec 17 16:37 UTC] No.15933006[source]▶
> I'm not concerned that Mozilla might push malware into Firefox installations

Nobody is concerned about that, in my opinion. I'm concerned someone will push malware through Mozilla into Firefox installations. Pushing addon installs should not be possible at all.

replies(4): >>15933118 #>>15933239 #>>15933501 #>>15936753 #
kibibu ◴[15 Dec 17 16:52 UTC] No.15933118[source]▶
I'm concerned about Mozilla pushing software written by the Mr Robot marketing department.
replies(3): >>15933277 #>>15933394 #>>15937337 #
callahad ◴[15 Dec 17 17:28 UTC] No.15933394[source]▶
I'm not entirely comfortable with how this all went, but it's at least worth noting that the add-on was written entirely by Mozilla engineers.
replies(1): >>15933756 #
1. UmmNope ◴[15 Dec 17 18:10 UTC] No.15933756[source]▶
This is the opposite of comforting
replies(1): >>15934029 #
2. UmmNope ◴[15 Dec 17 18:45 UTC] No.15934029[source]▶
Well it is - one could expect this sort of crap pushed by marketing/bizdev via management but the fact that Mozilla engineers actively collaborated on this is a sign of deep normative inadequacy among the people who are supposed to be the last line of defense against this sort of thing.
replies(1): >>15934141 #
3. TheRealPomax ◴[15 Dec 17 19:01 UTC] No.15934141[source]▶
You seem to either not understand or ignore that even in a company like Mozilla, there are decisions made by marketing that end up having to be implemented by engineers. It might be a non-profit, but it's a non-profit corporation with salaried employees, not a loose assembly of people purely in it for the love of a browser. If the incredibly high up people say X needs to happen, you make X happen.
replies(2): >>15934520 #>>15936758 #
4. TooFastIndeed ◴[15 Dec 17 19:54 UTC] No.15934520{3}[source]▶
I understand it all too well, but when Mozilla is posing as a public benefit company with the "good of the Internet" as its mission this kind of stuff is inexcusable and should be called out all the louder.
5. Mithaldu ◴[16 Dec 17 01:23 UTC] No.15936758{3}[source]▶
It's a non-profit with a duty specifically different from "make profits" and there are consequences to this.

To quote an ex-mozilla employee:

""

Because the Mozilla Foundation is a nonprofit corporation, it has a specific legal purpose for existing spelled out explicitly in its articles of incorporation: "The specific purpose of the Corporation [here meaning the Foundation] is to promote the development of, public access to and adoption of the open source Mozilla web browsing and Internet application software." If Mozilla Foundation were to ignore this mandate, it would jeopardize the nonprofit, tax exempt status of the foundation

""

In this case they are definitely ignoring the mandate, and this should never remotely have happened.

Source of the legalese: https://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-articles-...