Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Security versus Freedom

Making moves

I understand the need and direction toward security, but it should be left available for the use, in a way or another, eventually with a disclaimer, eventually by an obscure :configure option, the possibility to bypass unsecured sites, or those relying in self-signed certificates, or those having duplicated/shared server certificates, and other nasty things. In the past I had only Firefox to do my job and surf the web, now I have to install google Chrome to continue working. I'd prefer to have a single browser on my environment rather than managing two of them, with two sets of bookmarks and habits to take... and I'd like it to stay Firefox. But today, I have less and less sites that I can use with Firefox (in the past I had the possibility to bypass security issues, something that still exists with Chrome)... Already a lot of my colleagues have moved to Chrome for that reason, please help me keep using Firefox! Keep me assuming my own responsibility of what I do when I connect to an unsecured, badly configured site. Don't remove my freedom and keep future web site developers and application developers stay concerned about Firefox... Do you want to see again those labels on site "best work with IExplorer" (replacing IExplorer by Chrome)??? If so, don't change anything, keep going with Firefox as a restrictive browser which removes responsibility and freedom from its users.