So now, extensions can change to anything they want at any time they want with our without consent?
As far as I know a privacy policy has zero legal weight, that is, a company can put anything it wants into the privacy policy, it has no effect on what is actually done.
This is great: I've wanted a personal extension for a while (roughly to replace my userscripts but with more power and better sync) but was put off by it having to be public or manually installed. Now I can make this!
I have a few private extensions like this (e.g. for HN, GOG, my own new tab page, etc.). I don't have the exact steps for this at the handy, been meaning to do a write-up at some point, but my mk script is just "$webext sign --channel unlisted --api-key $jwt_issue --api-secret $jwt_secret" – I don't recall if you need to create it the extension in the Mozilla web UI first, but I don't think so(?)
Even prior to this there was an option to upload an extension to AMO for "private distribution". Mozilla will sign your extension so it installs without a fuss, but it won't be hosted on AMO. You can still host it on your personal website, or share the .xpi file though.
Their policy doesn't apply to your computer. Only to developers that want to use Mozilla's infrastructure for distribution.
I find that limitation bizarre from an open source browser; it's the sort of behavior I'd expect from Apple.
You're right that it's your computer, and you're free to change and recompile Firefox to do whatever you want, so I don't see what the issue is. The polices are for what extensions they allow on their store not what you can install on your computer. Last I knew, you could make your own extension and load it yourself with the store being involved at all. Go nuts.
This makes chunking for any sizable extension an absolute nightmare!
DRM prevents you from redistributing original media (with varying degrees of effectiveness) and doesn't do much for cryptographic attestation (nominally).
These are two very different systems for different purposes.
Pray tell, which usable browser do you believe provides better assurances than Firefox? Certainly it's not Chrome or Edge, is it?
I think they meant that they are not going back to publishing Firefox extensions/add-ons. That doesn't imply they started writing extensions for another browser.
Firefox could have been the chosen one, the hackable browser. But it's just another hermetically sealed product.
