BetterGaia►2800+Users►FF&CR►PostFormaterHeaders+

BetterGaia should...

Beat out the addon competition.	24.2%	[ 138 ]
Work together with other addons.	39.4%	[ 225 ]
+1 (idc)	36.4%	[ 208 ]
Total Votes:			[ 571 ]

[WindPowa]

allvanishing

Users are made clear with our notices of permissions that with using BetterGaia, they expect BetterGaia to preform as expected with the help of BetterGaia's own code and it's developer's services. Users cannot expect to deal with a non-working, incomplete product because all of the developer's tools are barred from being used by themselves.

Also, using Chrome's developer tools and analyzing BetterGaia's requests are a form of reverse-engineering.

◢ ♜ ✜ ♞ ✜ ♜ ◣

It may be true that with using BetterGaia, users expect BetterGaia to preform as expected, but they are not made clear that in order to work as expected, BetterGaia needs to contact other websites.

Here is what the aforementioned permissions notice says:

Quote:

► PERMISSIONS FAQ
We understand your concerns about the permissions Chrome asks to use BetterGaia. Many extensions similar to BetterGaia in the Chrome Web Store require such permissions as we do. Here are the reasons as to why Chrome requests these permissions:
* "Your data on gaiaonline.com"
BetterGaia adds features to Gaia by placing JavaScript and CSS into the page,
which needs the correct permissions to be able to so.
* "Your browsing history"
BetterGaia has to open new tabs for pages such as your Options.
BetterGaia will NEVER access your browsing history at any time.

There is no mention of contacting any third-party websites, or what data that is sent to them.


Additionally, using Google Chrome's own tools is not reverse-engineering; it's simply using the browser.
Whether BetterGaia's requests show up there or not is not necessarily due to a conscious reverse engineering act; one might simply need to run the developer tools on a gaiaonline.com page, and notice that there is an extra request there that, upon inspection of gaiaonline.com's JavaScript code (not BetterGaia's), this request cannot have been made by the page itself, therefore deducting that this request must have been initiated by BetterGaia.

Was that how I found out? No, I simply used intuition from past knowledge. Did that violate the end-user agreement? Not sure there was one there at the time, but perhaps I did.

[allvanishing]

Knight Yoshi

allvanishing

Knight Yoshi

Doesn't matter if Chrome has policies on viewing an extensions coding. Firefox add-ons are all open source, which means we can open it anytime we want.

However we are not using any of your coding in the re-development of GaiArch. With that said, we're done here. Clearly you have no interest in making it more clear to your users, and have no interest in making an option to turn off data sending. So that's your problem.
Our intention was to not slander BetterGaia, but apparently it was taken as such. I understand you're just defending BetterGaia, however in the process you're making false accusations that we're using your coding just because we inspected it. Which again is not true. As stated before, Firefox add-ons as best to my knowledge are open source.

Regardless of what was said, we're done here. We have no interest in copying BetterGaia's coding. You have a nice add-on, but in reality we have no need for it. We have our own ideas and our own way of doing things.

Good day to you Vanishing.

Just to let you know, Firefox add-on licences are up to the developer. BetterGaia's terms are here. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bettergaia/license/

◢ ♜ ✜ ♞ ✜ ♜ ◣

Oh well. We're still not using your coding.

As stated, good day.

I hold no bad intentions, and I hope you don't intend to do so either.

◢ ♜ ✜ ♞ ✜ ♜ ◣

[allvanishing]

WindPowa

It may be true that with using BetterGaia, users expect BetterGaia to preform as expected, but they are not made clear that in order to work as expected, BetterGaia needs to contact other websites.

Here is what the aforementioned permissions notice says:

Quote:

► PERMISSIONS FAQ
We understand your concerns about the permissions Chrome asks to use BetterGaia. Many extensions similar to BetterGaia in the Chrome Web Store require such permissions as we do. Here are the reasons as to why Chrome requests these permissions:
* "Your data on gaiaonline.com"
BetterGaia adds features to Gaia by placing JavaScript and CSS into the page,
which needs the correct permissions to be able to so.
* "Your browsing history"
BetterGaia has to open new tabs for pages such as your Options.
BetterGaia will NEVER access your browsing history at any time.

There is no mention of contacting any third-party websites, or what data that is sent to them.


Additionally, using Google Chrome's own tools is not reverse-engineering; it's simply using the browser.
Whether BetterGaia's requests show up there or not is not necessarily due to a conscious reverse engineering act; one might simply need to run the developer tools on a gaiaonline.com page, and notice that there is an extra request there that, upon inspection of gaiaonline.com's JavaScript code (not BetterGaia's), this request cannot have been made by the page itself, therefore deducting that this request must have been initiated by BetterGaia.

Was that how I found out? No, I simply used intuition from past knowledge. Did that violate the end-user agreement? Not sure there was one there at the time, but perhaps I did.

I'll amend that post to include the BG Sidebar. Even though, deducting isn't concrete. One cannot just guess because there is no where else to place the blame on. Also, your past post in '09 isn't applicable here, since BetterGaia for Chrome is built independently from the Firefox version.

I also saw on Gaiarch's page, it asks Chrome for access to api.recaptcha.net. Recaptcha is used on many other sites than Gaia, meaning Gaiarch can access pages where Recaptcha is used, including Facebook, Google, secured banking sites and more through backdoors.

◢ ♜ ✜ ♞ ✜ ♜ ◣

[WindPowa]

allvanishing

WindPowa

It may be true that with using BetterGaia, users expect BetterGaia to preform as expected, but they are not made clear that in order to work as expected, BetterGaia needs to contact other websites.

Here is what the aforementioned permissions notice says:

Quote:

► PERMISSIONS FAQ
We understand your concerns about the permissions Chrome asks to use BetterGaia. Many extensions similar to BetterGaia in the Chrome Web Store require such permissions as we do. Here are the reasons as to why Chrome requests these permissions:
* "Your data on gaiaonline.com"
BetterGaia adds features to Gaia by placing JavaScript and CSS into the page,
which needs the correct permissions to be able to so.
* "Your browsing history"
BetterGaia has to open new tabs for pages such as your Options.
BetterGaia will NEVER access your browsing history at any time.

There is no mention of contacting any third-party websites, or what data that is sent to them.


Additionally, using Google Chrome's own tools is not reverse-engineering; it's simply using the browser.
Whether BetterGaia's requests show up there or not is not necessarily due to a conscious reverse engineering act; one might simply need to run the developer tools on a gaiaonline.com page, and notice that there is an extra request there that, upon inspection of gaiaonline.com's JavaScript code (not BetterGaia's), this request cannot have been made by the page itself, therefore deducting that this request must have been initiated by BetterGaia.

Was that how I found out? No, I simply used intuition from past knowledge. Did that violate the end-user agreement? Not sure there was one there at the time, but perhaps I did.

I'll amend that post to include the BG Sidebar. Even though, deducting isn't concrete. One cannot just guess because there is no where else to place the blame on. Also, your past post in '09 isn't applicable here, since BetterGaia for Chrome is built independently from the Firefox version.

I also saw on Gaiarch's page, it asks Chrome for access to api.recaptcha.net. Recaptcha is used on many other sites than Gaia, meaning Gaiarch can access pages where Recaptcha is used, including Facebook, Google, secured banking sites and more through backdoors.

◢ ♜ ✜ ♞ ✜ ♜ ◣

One can reliably declare where to put the blame on when the extension is the only possible cause for it. Even more so when the request in question points to the same domain as the one the BetterGaia homepage is on...

But anyway, thank you for amending the FAQ. I am glad to see improvement smile

As for GaiArch's chrome version, it is true that it currently requires api.recaptcha.net access. I am not the one behind the chrome version of GaiArch, however; I only deal with the Firefox version. Winged Demon X would be the guy to ask. He is currently working on getting that dependency out, so that it will not be required anymore. (Edit: See Winged's post above)
Thank you regardless for pointing it out, and please forgive my colleagues here who aren't exactly being very nice. sweatdrop

[S u n n i e pea]

Am I able to breathe yet or should I still be sitting on the edge of my seat?
Man, italiano gaians should not be allowed to see this. /nosy friggin italiano girl.

[allvanishing]

WindPowa

One can reliably declare where to put the blame on when the extension is the only possible cause for it. Even more so when the request in question points to the same domain as the one the BetterGaia homepage is on...

OT: But still, one can't link the two together without concrete evidence. For example, a murder might happen at a man's house, but that doesn't prove that the man is a murder since he was the only one there. 3nodding I'm not sure if you can tell, but I have a slight affinity for debating.

◢ ♜ ✜ ♞ ✜ ♜ ◣

[WindPowa]

allvanishing

WindPowa

One can reliably declare where to put the blame on when the extension is the only possible cause for it. Even more so when the request in question points to the same domain as the one the BetterGaia homepage is on...

OT: But still, one can't link the two together without concrete evidence. For example, a murder might happen at a man's house, but that doesn't prove that the man is a murder. 3nodding I'm not sure if you can tell, but I have a slight affinity for debating.

◢ ♜ ✜ ♞ ✜ ♜ ◣

I can tell just fine~

Although in this case, I'd say that there is evidence that the victim has been killed by a human, has not committed suicide, that only one other person is alive in the house, and that no human has entered or left the house during the entire process. Oh, and the knife in the victim's back also has the alive man's fingerprints on it. And he's stabbing the corpse every time you blink while refreshing the page. xp

I apologize for all of this, S u n n i e pea >:

[S u n n i e pea]

allvanishing

but I have a slight?! affinity for debating.

◢ ♜ ✜ ♞ ✜ ♜ ◣

I couldn't tell.. emotion_0A0

[allvanishing]

WindPowa

I can tell just fine~

Although in this case, I'd say that there is evidence that the victim has been killed by a human, has not committed suicide, that only one other person is alive in the house, and that no human has entered or left the house during the entire process. Oh, and the knife in the victim's back also has the alive man's fingerprints on it. And he's stabbing the corpse every time you blink while refreshing the page. xp

I apologize for all of this, S u n n i e pea >:

Well still, the man could of just finished cooking for himself and used the knife, the knife may have slipped and beating the odds the victim may just of landed on the knife in a way that doesn't look self inflicted.

◢ ♜ ✜ ♞ ✜ ♜ ◣

[allvanishing]

cat_ninja Good night.

◢ ♜ ✜ ♞ ✜ ♜ ◣

[WindPowa]

allvanishing

WindPowa

I can tell just fine~

Although in this case, I'd say that there is evidence that the victim has been killed by a human, has not committed suicide, that only one other person is alive in the house, and that no human has entered or left the house during the entire process. Oh, and the knife in the victim's back also has the alive man's fingerprints on it. And he's stabbing the corpse every time you blink while refreshing the page. xp

I apologize for all of this, S u n n i e pea >:

Well still, the man could of just finished cooking for himself and used the knife, the knife may have slipped and beating the odds the victim may just of landed on the knife in a way that doesn't look self inflicted.

◢ ♜ ✜ ♞ ✜ ♜ ◣

It's still missing the event reproducibility part (request is re-sent on every refresh). Why would he keep doing that at a frequency that the investigator may control?

Edit: Bye~

[D e l i r i o u s]

Here's the better question..

Why does GaiArch care what its competitor is or is not doing?