Soo... No source? Requires access to 'Read and change all your data on all websites'? Pinky-promises not to send data to a server?
On top of that it uses blur to hide secrets when it has been proven that blurring leaks enough information for the obscured data to be reconstructed.
On top of that it's a $4/mo subscription service for what in your words amounts to regex + entropy heuristics + some enshittification (you're not allowed to have custom regex unless you pay subscription)...
What, you don't trust strangers with all your web browsers data? Don't be so paranoid.
Now developers have to give their source code for free and can also not monetize subscription. Is it some kind of modern slavery?
The only place I'm insistent about source-code is things like this that need access to a ton of my data at all times. An app that only has access to the data I choose to share with it, I'm more willing to give-and-take on the show-me-the-code front.
As far as subscriptions go, a lot of devs have moved to a subscription-train model, which I really like: you pay for the subscription (which funds development and pays for support), but at any time you can _stop_ paying the subscription cost and keep the version you're currently running without further updates. That's a good trade-off to me, since I can choose to end my subscription without it becoming a catastrophic migration event that has to be carefully planned and executed fully before opting to stop paying.
No source - no pay. Even if source, in case the licensing scheme is subscription-based, there better be some service rendered that has recurring expenses, otherwise -- still no pay.
yes source - still no pay. What is the benefit in satisfying your demands? Code it yourself and make it open source.
Dude, just install the closed source screen reader that tries to find PII/credit cards/social security numbers on your computer. It's for Cyber Security!
Agreed. Flagged the article. Borderline malware advertisement.
They built a new thing and shared it. Hn is news for “hackers”, and sharing early products like this is one of the intended use cases. Sure it lacks polish, but flagging seems extreme
I mean, drumming up a chrome extension on HN to get a userbase, then abusing it or selling it off to be abused shouldn't be the sort of entrepreneurial/hacking mindset HN appreciates.
> abusing it or selling it off
I got no indication that the author was planning to do either of these things
How about all the red flags of my initial comment?