MozillaZine

What to do about Junk Firefox Ad-Ons??

Discussion of general topics about Mozilla Firefox
dk70
 
Posts: 115
Joined: December 14th, 2004, 12:41 am

Post Posted September 20th, 2006, 10:11 pm

Well try it out is all I can say. I like feature list for sure. You even get your own little webpage, also auto-generated, like this http://mojabosna.ourtoolbar.com/ Description of features is automatically updated as toolbar updates. You log in at Conduit, edit bar, then save and website is updated as well - I think that is how it works. Addon site at Mozilla is not - which is why you see so them on "new/updated" list over and over, change 1 button and they have to submit an "upgrade".

Conduit deliver the stuff but it is up to "author" making money out of extension. Toolbar can be used for whatever he likes - and as said that is quite a lot. Buttons, text, rss, radio, chat, mail, scripts even. But there is no direct income out of the box to look forward to, Conduit just supply the tool while "encouraging" "author" to direct some searches to their site. They always win of course.

Should be easy to reject all of them because of non existing relationship between submitter and code. Conduit themself could submit. At least the reviewer I mentioned can only be satisfied if he get information directly from those who know code. If that is new policy you wont see them on frontpage much more. However Ive yet to see why this is not true http://www.conduit.com/customtemplmngr. ... 1&version=

meatus
 
Posts: 5
Joined: September 19th, 2006, 12:40 pm

Post Posted September 20th, 2006, 11:10 pm

Anderzen wrote:If you are concerned about extensions collecting user data don't use them if you use one that does and didn't know it well thats life we cant expect people to spend their time flagging everything that does it would be like walking down the street and expecting muggers and thieves
to be wearing shirts that say warning "mugger or thieve" the Internet is a sick place that isn't getting any healthier until it does you will have to watch your own backs.....


I agree with J-Mac. Hopefully we've progressed from thug-mentality. Especially with these free & open source projects, we have the right to control this sort of bullshit.

meatus
 
Posts: 5
Joined: September 19th, 2006, 12:40 pm

Post Posted September 20th, 2006, 11:13 pm

dk70 wrote: However Ive yet to see why this is not true http://www.conduit.com/customtemplmngr. ... 1&version=


Well, it's a business model based around collecting data from unsuspecting users. Who want's to wait to see if that is *true* or not? I think this sort of practice is wrong to begin with.

old zmanzero
 
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post Posted September 20th, 2006, 11:18 pm

the express purpose of these toolbars is to collect data on the user for profit. that is a fact. they are out of the same template. it is contrary to open source to feed these leeches. it's easy to put those big red letters up i wrote about, because it is true. if someone even want's to go to the trouble of allowing this trash in they ought to require those scarlet letters. if action isn't taken this situation will magnify come release 2.0. and many many many toolbars will be born of the origional seed.

http://narutopal.communitytoolbars.com/
http://bramos.ourtoolbar.com/
http://forum.effectivebrand.net/index.php?topic=2152.0 check out their forum.
http://www.toolbarportal.com/#
http://reelnewmedia.communitytoolbars.com/
http://www.conduit.com/customtemplmngr. ... 2&version=
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=326579 < good bug.

J-Mac

User avatar
 
Posts: 282
Joined: July 4th, 2004, 5:07 pm

Post Posted September 20th, 2006, 11:30 pm

I have already read their policy. Regardless of what they claim, the ability of the code to call home - at Conduit's beck and call, NOT the user's - opens up the user's machine to possible attacks to which he or she otherwise would not be subject. Gator/Claria has always made the same claim and just how welcome do you think they would be at Mozilla with a "Time and Date" extension?

And we're still left to ponder just 100% of what is guaranteed, and how so? If just words, why are they used? Words should have a purpose, after all. One has to wonder just what your interest is in this matter, dk70. Do you have any financial stake at all in whether or not the Conduit toolbars remain as available Fx addons? I have noticed that in an earlier post in this thread you used the expression "...our toolbars...". If you are associated with Conduit in any way and have not identified yourself here in this thread as such, then your credibility is nil.

EDIT: Seems I misread a post - Regarding the bolded passage (...our toolbar...) above, I think I saw dk70 refer to "our privacy policy" in a quote from somewhere else - not cited very well. Sorry about that remark, dk70. I'll delete it, if desired. I din't want to just delete it without mentioning this first for clarification. Let me know.
J-Mac

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/4.0.1

dk70
 
Posts: 115
Joined: December 14th, 2004, 12:41 am

Post Posted September 21st, 2006, 12:56 am

No Im not involved with Conduit or I probably would not vote for throwing all their bars out today. However I dont want to label them spyware before I see proof. Does not matter if I like their business model or not, only details. So where are they? You can look up Gator etc. because people dont really like "spyware" so if possible companies get flamed and put into antispyware databases. Seems you are mixing it all together into something you dont like - missing the point that problem is Addon site have weak or no policy when it comes to source vs. author. Have obviously not been able to deal with these bars.

If extension was clearly related to spyware I really doubt so many of them would have been approved. Even with weak guidelines no one would do that.

Many programs send home, if only a ping or 2. You know Google toolbar I guess. Not all trust Google you know. Many sites and program have similar privacy policy/EULA. Nothing special about this. Just words as you say. No need to ponder, be sure some have will investigate and analyze Conduit should they behave suspiciously. May be they dont do more than what they state.

See Gallery at Conduit site, they have like 120000+ websites so no need to give links. As said each toolbar get own site.

Monetizing is everywhere today on internet. I dont see the horror in Conduits attempt of making money.

Toolbar is still nicely done. Have only little experience with actual use, may be it slow things down, mail check dont work or whatever. But see for yourself.

Thumper

User avatar
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: November 4th, 2002, 5:42 pm
Location: Linlithgow, Scotland

Post Posted September 21st, 2006, 1:04 am

J-Mac wrote:@Thumper: Sorry, but Bugzilla, IMO, is for bug-reporting primarily. Problems with code and/or functionality. I have never used it for complaining about addons of a questionable purpose, and I would not advocate using it for that. If that is how AMO sees Bugzilla then things are worse than I thought!


Bugzilla is a general tracking tool for anything which can be actioned in a methodical manner. Things such as site evangelism, document writing and community planning have all had bugs in the past. The bloody plush toy had a bug at one point. If one has not opened a bug, one is not in a position to state whether said bug is effective or not.

Frank Lion wrote:Yes, and in the business world people discuss things via professional business letters or Emails or even, imagine this! in person.


In the business world people use their real names. I'm less than convinced that you're being useful here.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=326579


This is exactly the kind of bug report that should be filed. I'm not surprised that it has been fixed. But then, I'm just a "curmudgeon" who doesn't pander to whining regulars, what would I know.

- Chris

Frank Lion

User avatar
 
Posts: 20842
Joined: April 23rd, 2004, 6:59 pm
Location: ... The Exorcist....United Kingdom

Post Posted September 21st, 2006, 1:27 am

Thumper wrote:
Frank Lion wrote:Yes, and in the business world people discuss things via professional business letters or Emails or even, imagine this! in person.

In the business world people use their real names. I'm less than convinced that you're being useful here.

Like you matter.

Thumper wrote: But then, I'm just a "curmudgeon"

No, you are actually a bully. Trust me, that will stop.

Thumper wrote:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=326579

This is exactly the kind of bug report that should be filed.

Yes, we all KNOW about that. It is the same bug report that we all read here, over a month ago :

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... 24#2429724

...on the same thread that you wrote this :

Thumper wrote:Theoretically every one of them has undergone code review, so they aren't malicious. You'd need to email the addons staff to check.

You are talking just for the sake of talking. Just go back to sleep and back to 2003, when facile bluster like yours may have been effective in these forums. It no longer is.
Metal Lion latest SeaMonkey & Thunderbird Themes - Sea Monkey and Silver Sea Monkey
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (attrib.)

thyristor

User avatar
 
Posts: 35
Joined: July 16th, 2005, 4:54 pm

Post Posted September 21st, 2006, 4:11 am

dk70 wrote:Monetizing is everywhere today on internet. I dont see the horror in Conduits attempt of making money.


The horror is to use addons.mozilla.org to attempt to make money. They should use their own site.

Thumper

User avatar
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: November 4th, 2002, 5:42 pm
Location: Linlithgow, Scotland

Post Posted September 21st, 2006, 4:19 am

Frank Lion wrote:...on the same thread that you wrote this :

Thumper wrote:Theoretically every one of them has undergone code review, so they aren't malicious. You'd need to email the addons staff to check.


"Malicious" is not the same as "revenue-generating".

- Chris

VanillaMozilla
 
Posts: 13808
Joined: November 7th, 2005, 11:26 am

Post Posted September 21st, 2006, 7:48 am

Jokes and feuds aside, at the risk of asking the obvious, has anyone had a discussion with the appropriate people? It's not really clear to me what has been tried, or what kind of response (if any) there has been.

Sometimes these guys like to see bug reports because it gives a certain structure and formality to the arguments and makes the discussion visible. On the other hand, they often will not respond to a bug report unless (1) they know about it, (2) they want to, and (3) it fits with what they are doing. A bug report may or may not help, but you probably do have to do a little diplomatic lobbying. If that has been tried and rebuffed, there's probably not a lot you can do.

Frank Lion

User avatar
 
Posts: 20842
Joined: April 23rd, 2004, 6:59 pm
Location: ... The Exorcist....United Kingdom

Post Posted September 21st, 2006, 8:51 am

As previously stated, I have brought this latest thread to the attention of Mike Morgan from Addons and, in particular, the suggestions of dk70.

When more information on this subject is known to me, then I shall make it available here.
Metal Lion latest SeaMonkey & Thunderbird Themes - Sea Monkey and Silver Sea Monkey
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (attrib.)

VanillaMozilla
 
Posts: 13808
Joined: November 7th, 2005, 11:26 am

Post Posted September 21st, 2006, 9:08 am

Sounds good. OK, for the record, it's a huge problem. There are no disclaimers of any kind on the addons, and that is unconscionable.

People trust Firefox, and they have a right to. Here's how it's advertised right at the top of the front page: "Browse the Web with confidence - Firefox protects you from viruses, spyware and pop-ups. Enjoy improvements to performance, ease of use and privacy." If that's not true, someone had better change the front page fast. Or else someone darned well better make sure it's true.

Cyberfox

User avatar
 
Posts: 265
Joined: October 6th, 2005, 12:21 pm
Location: USA

Post Posted September 21st, 2006, 10:23 am

VanillaMozilla wrote:Sounds good. OK, for the record, it's a huge problem. There are no disclaimers of any kind on the addons, and that is unconscionable.

People trust Firefox, and they have a right to. Here's how it's advertised right at the top of the front page: "Browse the Web with confidence - Firefox protects you from viruses, spyware and pop-ups. Enjoy improvements to performance, ease of use and privacy." If that's not true, someone had better change the front page fast. Or else someone darned well better make sure it's true.

I definitely agree!

anderzen

User avatar
 
Posts: 106
Joined: September 7th, 2006, 5:38 pm
Location: In front of computer

Post Posted September 21st, 2006, 4:54 pm

I think you are all reading to deep....the Internet has more Viruses, Malware, Spyware user data collecting garbage than can ever be handeld in the current state that it works...until the Internet is completely recoded this will continue to be an ever pressing problem there is simply no way around it
plus it was after all created by mankind witch also is plauged by viruses and diseses and all kinds of inhumane problems the people who work at mozzila and any other company alike are just like you and me....the people who make up a already sick world....give up and get on with life...this problem is only a small part of one huge one the Internet it self.....(don't take this the wrong way it is only an opinion not an attack at any one personaly)....good luck downloading ...hope your using a rubber cause you know you could catch something ?
"Be discreet in all things, and so render it unnecessary to be mysterious about any."

Return to Firefox General


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests