Alright lads, let's all go back to RSS feeds and scrap that whole "browser" experiment.
:)
61–70 of 180 posts
Alright lads, let's all go back to RSS feeds and scrap that whole "browser" experiment.
:)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> not an easy fix All of this is an easy fix: disable css. In the same way that "I don't want to be tracked by javascript" can easily be resolved by disabling javascript. I'm not seriously suggesting everyone does that, but anyone who is so paranoid that they don't want a site knowing that they're reading its content might want to consider it.
Completely disabling CSS will make a lot of sites inaccessible. Partly disabling it (for example the #after part) would be interesting...
Whose going to be first to make the 'I always browse the Web with CSS disabled' post?
Using lynx, the only thing that makes reading Hacker News somewhat inconvenient is the lack of indentation to show the nesting hierarchy, but otherwise it works quite well. Some other sites are so messed up that it's actually more comfortable to read them in a text-only browser that completely ignores CSS and replaces images by their alt-tags. Of course I frequently do want to look at images, so my main browser remai…
Whose going to be first to make the 'I always browse the Web with CSS disabled' post?
> I usually fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program (see https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/womb/hacks.git) that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me. Then I look at them using a web browser, unless it is easy to see the text in the HTML page directly. I usually try lynx first, then a graphical browser if the page needs it (using konqueror, which won't fetch from other sites in such a situation).
But how many users disable JavaScript in their browser to prevent tracking? And is the fact that a website can track all your clicks and mouse movements a privacy/security issue to begin with? Isn’t it by design that the website you’re visiting can track you?
> by design By design, the web is a "1. send me the document 2. here it is" transaction, not a series of many small notifications. By design, the url() property almost certainly wasn't intended to be dynamic. This is clearly 'bending the established rules' — cleverly, admittedly.
It's now an application platform regardless you like it or not.
The obvious solution is to block the server-side pages that the CSS elements link to. This kind of tracking can be mitigated the same way any other kind of tracking is already handled by uBlock or uMatrix.
At least in Safari 11.0.2 (macOS 10.12.6) link tracking does not work. The selector #link2:active::after appears to always exist in Safari 11.0.2 ("active" is being disregarded). I clicked on none of those links, I have never visited google.de, but results.php page told me all 3 links had been clicked. EDIT: formatting, remove word.
The demo site correctly tracks me in Safari 11.0.1 (macOS 10.13.1)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * Media query - So what, user agent gives this away mostly anyways It doesn't; without media queries you can't detect thing like browser window size or screen pixel density. > * Font checking - Can help fingerprinting...browsers need to start restricting this list better IMO (not familiar w/ current tech, but would hope we could get it down to OS-specific at the most) There's a lot of trade-offs here. Plenty of peo…
> It doesn't; without media queries you can't detect thing like browser window size or screen pixel density. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I shouldn't have said media queries, I should have said "CSS property queries". What CSS properties you have doesn't leak any more than your UA I would guess. > There's a lot of trade-offs here [...] I'll take it as an option to have a strict subset (though would prefer it as opt-out t…
>> Unique font names per user seem unnecessary.
As a dev that has worked in CSS for over a decade, I have no idea what either of those mean.
EDIT: I see the unique font names part now, totally missed that while focusing on the other parts.