And what makes Mozilla believe that Mozilla is entitled to modify the software running on my hardware without my explicit consent on a case by case basis?
You did your good action of the day when you warned me about the dangers and you shouldnât do more if I, regardless, decided to install that shady extension downloaded from the worst site in the deep web; once I accepted the risk, no external source has any right to remotely disable it without asking me first (unless you are my countryâs law enforcer).
So, always ask first!
âHey user, your installed junkâs certificate suddenly became invalid, so its highly recommended to disable it, would you like for Firefox to disable it for you so you can stay safe? Yes/Noâ
It is very commendable wanting to keep your users safe and away from all dangers, but you know what? Ultimately, your users, arenât yours; they are only people that use the tools you made, therefore the decision to stay safe or not is not yours, it belongs to each individual.
This patronizing attitude that tech companies (and developers) had embraced in the last decade is unnerving and even more, very unhealthy. As Doctorow said when talking about Firefox including support for DRM media back in 2014: "a free and open infrastructure is incompatible with the idea that owners of computers are treated as untrusted by those computers".
Mozilla is the referent when it comes to ethics and human values in the tech world (after RMS of course), but damn, guys. Some times you really get too close to the borderline, and I know it comes out of goodwill, but still, it is too close for comfort.
So, Itâs awesome that you are working hard on fixing that certificate problem, I have no doubt that you will handle it in a timely manner. But please, after thatâs done, fix that patronizing attitude too.