Re: [Help-librejs] Offering option to block vs warn?

[cgw993]

I wonder if timed permission would be of any  use? "Allow this particular
script, or all scripts on this webpage to run for x minutes or x hours or x
days before returning to blocking the scripts"

-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Loic J.
Duros
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 6:13 PM
To: John Sullivan
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Help-librejs] Offering option to block vs warn?


Yes, good idea, and in fact I think Zak from FSF suggested this idea a
little while back as well. We could have LibreJS provide information on the
scripts on a page and their licenses while still running those scripts,
regardless of whether they are free or not. Of course this would be an
option and would have a warning.

One of the reasons we switched to using hashes to recognized every script is
for a closely related purpose as well. The idea is to let people easily
whitelist/blacklist any script. We only need the logic now to allow/block
scripts at an individual level and provide an interface for users to choose
whether to execute the script or not, just one time, always, for this site
or across all sites.

I agree, it's better to have people be aware of what they are running and
let it run anyway than let everything run and never know they did or what
ran in their browser exactly (probably the vast majority of people do the
latter.)

As I mentioned in a previous note, we need a more mature interface to
improve usability and add these features. I'm planning on taking some of the
UI from NoScript and/or RequestPolicy to save some time. Working on this
ASAP, but I also have a few other tasks to do on IceCat before that. As
always, anyone willing to volunteer and work on LibreJS is more than welcome
to. I'm available any time to provide pointers on getting started.

Loic



John Sullivan <address@hidden> writes:

> What do people think about offering an option for LibreJS users to set 
> whether nonfree scripts should be outright blocked or if a prominent 
> warning should be displayed?
>
> I think in the current state of affairs on the Web, frustrated people 
> may disable the extension entirely. If they had a way that they could 
> be warned about the nonfree JS and then still be provided a way to 
> give feedback to the site, they might leave the extension on more.
>
> The default would/should still be to block.
>
> I understand it's tricky -- we don't want to encourage anyone to run 
> nonfree JavaScript, but I think this option may on balance still be a 
> good thing.
>
> -john