Can you trust uBlock?
After I added the privacy permission in order to make uBlock Origin reliable when it comes to blocking network requests, a lot of people questioned uBlock Origin's trustworthiness.
First, uBlock Origin is completely developed in full public view. All the sources and all the changes to the sources are fully accessible on GitHub.
Second, uBlock Origin does not have a dedicated server, it can't "phone home" with your browsing data, there is only GitHub, and GitHub is completely unrelated to uBlock Origin.
I think it's time I give examples of how requiring less permissions is not a sure sign a higher trustworthiness.
Chrome store: Web Protector - Reliable Phishing Protection.
This extension requires the same permission as uBlock, minus the privacy one. Some might be inclined that it can thus be more trusted than uBlock, which requires the privacy permission.
However, Web Protector has a home server, and it does "phone home" as opposed to uBlock (which has no home in the first place).
For every web page you visit, you can see Web Protector sending behind-the-scene network requests to webovernet.com:
This is just to demonstrate that the permissions alone do not tell the whole story. What must be assessed are:
- Is the code developed in full view?
- Under which licensed the code fall?
- Is there a home server?
- What network requests are made by an extension behind the scene?
- uBlock Origin's logger allows you to see all behind-the-scene network requests, including its own (to GitHub, for updating filter lists).
- How is an extension monetizing itself?
- To best understand how its interests are aligned or at odds with yours.
- I have no intent to monetize uBlock Origin, ever.