191–200 of 280 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or open up your laptop and (carefully) destroy it. OK, I destroyed it (carefully). Now it won't boot. What do I do next?
Get a refund from the guy who sold you that janky ass laptop that won’t boot without a microphone.
I think this sounds more like some sort of fingerprinting attempt. It good to see that random access to these kind of resources fails due to new(er) browser controls. However, this does not mean that the fingerprinting actually failed. There is probably some way to determine if the request was denied automatically by the browser or manually by the user (e.g., time to get "response"), which is definitely something whi…
In my experience, with tools like Cover Your Tracks (apparently this is the new name for Panopticlick), the more you try and thwart fingerprinting, the more unique you appear. Although I still do everything I can to block and filter everything conceivable, I've given up on trying to figure out how identifiable I am on the web because it seems useless. If you don't try then you're identifiable, and if you do then you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do wish google engineers would do something positive for society and switch to a career in subsistence farming. No one needs ads. Not arbitrary JS ads, not declarative ads, not personalised ads, not any ads.
But what do you see as the alternative for funding sites? The site we're on is funded by (declarative, non-personalized, non-obtrusive) ads. I would rather have ads than paywalls.
No offense but I've heard people who work at ad companies repeat this like a mantra, and it's a false dichotomy, akin to a coal company who dumps slag in rivers saying, "Well we think it's better than letting everyone freeze to death." We're not asking Google to stop advertising altogether and close up shop, just to make the internet ad ecosystem a little less awful and Orwellian.
There is extremely weak proof and all the crowd here has very predictable anti chrome response even though it has nothing to do with chrome. I think the domain is checking whether there is camera and mic present not turning it on and accessing content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why allow anything in an ad besides text or images? Why allow others to run arbitrary code through your network. Inexcusable by Google imo.
That would be anti-competitive by Google. These are different ad networks, not advertisers. Ad networks need to be able to do their own attribution and click spam detection.
Why allow any thing on any advertisement, regardless of network, that is not image or text? Anything else opens up security issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
also tape your laptop's camera
My company is now giving us those to use in our company laptops: https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61l+gnZORVL._AC_SY355_.j... They're pretty convenient and look nice
There is extremely weak proof and all the crowd here has very predictable anti chrome response even though it has nothing to do with chrome. I think the domain is checking whether there is camera and mic present not turning it on and accessing content.
I simply won't have it. At the moment, with FF, an adblocker and a JS blocker, I think I'm hard to track (but certainly not impossible). If my blockers get blocked, I can live without the WWW. Be careful, Goo! You may own the web, but the web doesn't own us.
As someone once said, "It's just a fad".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is likely a script that somehow avoided google's malware scanning pipelines. I can't think of a good reason for scripts through google ad syndication to be asking for camera and microphone permissions. I'd assume Google runs these scripts in something like a lab environment to see what's ultimately invoked before deploying them to production? If so, would this be indicative of both a deliberate controls bypass…
Javascript is Turing complete so it is impossible to determine what the script is going to do in all environments without running it in all environments. The script could just detect the test environment and avoid triggering its malicious behavior.
No, it just means that it is impossible to do for every program. Google could just make it reject scripts it is unable to handle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be anti-competitive by Google. These are different ad networks, not advertisers. Ad networks need to be able to do their own attribution and click spam detection.
You missed the question. Why allow any thing on any advertisement, regardless of network, that is not image or text? Anything else opens up security issues.
"Ad networks need to be able to do their own attribution and click spam detection."
The laptop camera can be disabled with small bit of black electrical tape, but I don't understand whose crazy idea it was to put microphones into laptops in the first place, especially without hardware kill switches like the Librems have. The same thing for modern cell phones, of course.