61–70 of 201 posts
This is annoying so I just use fresh browser profile every time I encounter such site, i.e. have a short-cut for: $ cat ~/bin/chrome-new #!/bin/sh TMPDIR=`mktemp -d /dev/shm/chrome-XXXXX` google-chrome --user-data-dir=$TMPDIR --no-first-run --no-make-default-browser "$@" rm -rf $TMPDIR
Can this fight ever be won? If you've been browsing the internet for more than 5 minutes you already have cookies from some of the major ad networks. Therefore if you do not have cookies from the major ad networks, you're either a brand-new device or an incognito browser. All that is left to do is get in bed with the ad network to ask them if they have good cookies for this session. As it so happens most of the compa…
The fight can be won if you block 3rd party JavaScript. Just install uMatrix and enjoy browsing the web in half the time it takes without it. No ads, no trackers, no Facebook widgets, just the web we learn to love. Sanity.
Can this fight ever be won? If you've been browsing the internet for more than 5 minutes you already have cookies from some of the major ad networks. Therefore if you do not have cookies from the major ad networks, you're either a brand-new device or an incognito browser. All that is left to do is get in bed with the ad network to ask them if they have good cookies for this session. As it so happens most of the compa…
What is nytimes.com using now to detect incognito? Enabling filesystem in incognito used to work until a few days ago.
Can this fight ever be won? If you've been browsing the internet for more than 5 minutes you already have cookies from some of the major ad networks. Therefore if you do not have cookies from the major ad networks, you're either a brand-new device or an incognito browser. All that is left to do is get in bed with the ad network to ask them if they have good cookies for this session. As it so happens most of the compa…
If the browser vendors would tighten their products up and start considering things like profiling the user's installed fonts as a security vulnerability, then we might see some progress. Unfortunately Google has a financial incentive to make Chrome trackable to advertisers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fight can be won if you block 3rd party JavaScript. Just install uMatrix and enjoy browsing the web in half the time it takes without it. No ads, no trackers, no Facebook widgets, just the web we learn to love. Sanity.
Do you know of any way through the about:config editor to do this? I'd hate to have to install yet another browser plugin.
Then in browsers like Chrome, click the site icon, SSL icon, or little plugin icon in the address bar — some icon usually appears, which when clicked gives access to enable/disable blocked content for this site.
I’m a bit surprised Chrome developers went the route of an in memory filesystem instead of trying to sandbox and clear real disk access. Silently using up to 120MB without realizing sounds pretty bad.
I’m a bit surprised Chrome developers went the route of an in memory filesystem instead of trying to sandbox and clear real disk access. Silently using up to 120MB without realizing sounds pretty bad.
You can't allow for bytes to sit around on disk in case of crash. Maybe they could encrypt with a key kept in memory? That'd still allow detection of use though.
Can this fight ever be won? If you've been browsing the internet for more than 5 minutes you already have cookies from some of the major ad networks. Therefore if you do not have cookies from the major ad networks, you're either a brand-new device or an incognito browser. All that is left to do is get in bed with the ad network to ask them if they have good cookies for this session. As it so happens most of the compa…
Alternatively, Google starts crawling the web in incognito mode; punishes websites that hide content.
Is this a cat-and-mouse game that's worth playing for Chrome? Browsers are so complex that I imagine incognito mode is always going to leave some kinds of statistical signatures that can be detected and exploited through merely moderate cleverness, but will be much harder to hide on Chrome's side. Is it worth it for Chrome? Or would resources be better spent on other parts of the browser? It's not really a privacy/se…
One part of the "web's contract" is that googlebot and other scrapers should get what the users get. And vice versa - if you're telling googlebot that there's a particular text available to the public; I'd expect to get the same content that you just gave googlebot and not something else, thank you very much.
I was under the impression that they're either just doing straight HTTP requests for HTML only... or they're running a full headless browser in normal mode.
So I'm not getting what's different here?
Sites have a long history of serving up different content to different users, e.g. to paying users, or blocking certain countries based on content contracts. It's certainly not part of the "web's contract" that scrapers get paywalled content they haven't paid for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is nytimes.com using now to detect incognito? Enabling filesystem in incognito used to work until a few days ago.
IIRC, the trick is to time filesystem access and deduce you're running from RAM rather than disk, thus in incognito mode.