Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Every other browser vendor is a for-profit entity, ..." Not the one that authored the text-only browser I am typing this from. Whether Mozilla turns a profit or not makes little difference in this instance. Mozilla does not survive on donations from users. Its employees are not volunteers working for free to defend user privacy. Its generously compensated executives and staff need money from the online ad business,…
Can you recommend one text-only browser?
Sensor Tower owns ad blocker and VPN apps that collect user data
91–100 of 125 posts
Re: Sensor Tower owns ad blocker and VPN apps that collect user data
#92What is current best-practice ad blocker for iOS Safari? AdGuard? Ad-Blocker Pro? I’ve tried Firefox but besides their tracker blocking ads are still prevalent.
Re: Sensor Tower owns ad blocker and VPN apps that collect user data
#93This is literally, one among many reasons (ha!), why I use Firefox. Every other browser vendor is a for-profit entity, and as such will limit good ad-blocking measures as Safari and Chrome have done recently with their new "security" policies. This is also why I don't use a VPN I don't run (or certainly not one that hasn't been audited with a good reputation), and I certainly would never fucking dream of using a free…
> Every other browser vendor is a for-profit entity, and as such will limit good ad-blocking measures as Safari I thought Safari introduced support for Content Blockers specifically to avoid ad blockers from phoning home and passing potentially sensitive information to the ad blocker's writer. Lots of people then got quite cross that their favourite blocker had been blocked.
No, it was introduced so that Apple could hurt Google on iOS / mobile Safari without opening the can of worms that is browser extensions.
Re: Sensor Tower owns ad blocker and VPN apps that collect user data
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mozilla is a for profit entity with some history of selling out their users (Remember Pocket). The Mozilla foundation is a non-profit. The Mozilla Corporation is a for-profit entity with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.
What happened with Pocket?
It was forced into FF as a non-removable extension.
Re: Sensor Tower owns ad blocker and VPN apps that collect user data
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every other browser vendor is a for-profit entity, and as such will limit good ad-blocking measures as Safari I thought Safari introduced support for Content Blockers specifically to avoid ad blockers from phoning home and passing potentially sensitive information to the ad blocker's writer. Lots of people then got quite cross that their favourite blocker had been blocked.
No, it was introduced so that Apple could hurt Google on iOS / mobile Safari without opening the can of worms that is browser extensions.
Keep in mind that Apple gets paid a percentage of Google ad revenue made in Safari; just like how Mozila gets paid a percentage of Google ad revenue made in Firefox.
Apple is hurting themselves too.
Re: Sensor Tower owns ad blocker and VPN apps that collect user data
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to move browsers permanently if you're not prepared. I moved to FF Quantom for a bit, but had to regularly open Chrome to get passwords etc. And the Chrome assholes removed the password export (or at least I could not for the life of me get it to work at the time) I ended up going back for a bit and added a password manager, and now I can move between browsers easily - but as I said, it's not always straigh…
Firefox has a built in import of browser data from other browsers such as Chrome. Does this no longer work?
It doesn't exist on Linux. When I moved from Chrome to Firefox, I used https://github.com/louisabraham/ffpass.
Re: Sensor Tower owns ad blocker and VPN apps that collect user data
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every other browser vendor is a for-profit entity, and as such will limit good ad-blocking measures as Safari I thought Safari introduced support for Content Blockers specifically to avoid ad blockers from phoning home and passing potentially sensitive information to the ad blocker's writer. Lots of people then got quite cross that their favourite blocker had been blocked.
That is exactly the bullshit they want you to believe. Restricting your ability to install/modify software on your computer because bad software could harm you. You have been bamboozled.
> You have been bamboozled.
The dramatically reduced incidence of various non-technical family members having to go to me or Geek Squad for yet another virus infection says otherwise.
Re: Sensor Tower owns ad blocker and VPN apps that collect user data
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh Nord's not bad because pay other people to break into other people's computers but but respect their own customers' privacy? https://medium.com/@xianghangmi/resident-evil-understanding-...
Assuming they do so, the comment I replied to is still extremely misleading. But do you have any actual evidence they do so? Having some IPs that show up as residential isn't good enough. That article doesn't call out any specific VPNs.
Very misleading yes: https://luminati.io/static/patent/2019-12-31_NordVPN_Complai...
Re: Sensor Tower owns ad blocker and VPN apps that collect user data
#99This is literally, one among many reasons (ha!), why I use Firefox. Every other browser vendor is a for-profit entity, and as such will limit good ad-blocking measures as Safari and Chrome have done recently with their new "security" policies. This is also why I don't use a VPN I don't run (or certainly not one that hasn't been audited with a good reputation), and I certainly would never fucking dream of using a free…
> Every other browser vendor is a for-profit entity, and as such will limit good ad-blocking measures as Safari I thought Safari introduced support for Content Blockers specifically to avoid ad blockers from phoning home and passing potentially sensitive information to the ad blocker's writer. Lots of people then got quite cross that their favourite blocker had been blocked.
Apple came up with a better way to mine your personal data through its Safari browser.
They introduced a feature (Intelligent Tracking Protection - ITP) that they claim blocks ads / trackers from tracking you online on the various sites that you visit.
A simplistic explanation:
Every time you visit a website with an ad or a tracker, it leaves a cookie on your browser that identifies you. You could block many of them by telling your browser to block cookies from third-party domains. This coupled with ad blockers is one effective way to tackle online tracking.
What Apple did was to deliberately take away this control from us and ask us to trust them to deicide which cookie is allowed and which is not.
They REMOVED the feature to allow us to block third-party cookies. So now you have only 2 option in Safari - allow ALL cookies or block all cookies. You cannot block all cookies as it breaks nearly all websites. Apple claims that you should allow websites to set cookies so it can research and find out which cookies track you. And so every time you visit a website, and it sets a cookie, Apple collects this information "anonymously".
So in effect, this "privacy feature" is designed to let Apple know about every website you visit.
Ofcourse, Apple claims all this data is anonymously stored (i.e. not tied to any of your personal information like Apple id). (This idea of anonymous collection of data has already been debunked and proven false as it can be "deanonymised").
Second, Apple claims that its anti-tracking feature will not work in private browsing mode because private browsing mode doesn't save cookies once you close a tab. So in effect, Apple deliberately cripples private browsing mode, in effect, advocating that all its users use normal browsing mode (so that Apple, and others, can mine more data from its users)
Third, by taking away cookie control, Apple now is in full control of deciding which cookie can stay in the browser. This means that if you visit a website regularly, Apple will decide how its cookies should be treated, regardless of whether you want it deleted it or not.
All in all, Apples anti-tracking feature is just designed to give their competitors a harder time while giving Apple the ability to mine their users data better and also taking control away from them.
Google researchers also found that Safari's anti-tracking feature was broken and quite weak:
> ... According to the Google researchers, the vulnerabilities left personal data exposed “because the ITP list implicitly stores information about the websites visited by the user”.
> ... The researchers also identified a flaw that allowed hackers to “create a persistent fingerprint that will follow the user around the web”, while others were able to reveal what individual users were searching for on search engine pages.
Apple claims to have fixed this. But the fact remains that the feature is still not quite effective because most online trackers have moved on to browser finger printing.
The developer of the popular ad-blocker uBlock Origin has also stated that Safari / webkit ad-blocking abilities leave a lot to be desired.
Source:
- https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/23/anonymise...
- https://www.fastcompany.com/90278465/sorry-your-data-can-sti...
- https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/23/health/data-privacy-prote...
- https://www.ft.com/content/916a766a-3d27-11ea-a01a-bae547046...
- https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/22/apple_intelligent_t...
Re: Sensor Tower owns ad blocker and VPN apps that collect user data
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every other browser vendor is a for-profit entity, and as such will limit good ad-blocking measures as Safari I thought Safari introduced support for Content Blockers specifically to avoid ad blockers from phoning home and passing potentially sensitive information to the ad blocker's writer. Lots of people then got quite cross that their favourite blocker had been blocked.
No, it was introduced so that Apple could hurt Google on iOS / mobile Safari without opening the can of worms that is browser extensions.
[deleted]