Live data from Hacker News

The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

standard.co.uk

211–220 of 445 posts

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#211
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, Android trades ads for system wide tracking and that's rotten for the user. Moreover, Android's tacking mechanism is brilliantly effective—one has to admire Google's ingenuity for its receiver/signalling system. It's so integral to Android that one can view the O/S as built around it rather than it as an addition/add-on to the O/S. Essentially, Android is an O/S built around an ingenious spying system. It's ju…

> It's just not possible to use an Android phone as Google intended (and as the vast majority of users actually do) without that tracking mechanism taking center stage These things are not as tightly woven into the OS as you make it seem. It is very much possible. GrapheneOS, CalyxOS, roll your own AOSP-based image. A completely degoogled Pixel series is even practical and realistic for casuals. As you say you miss o…

"These things are not as tightly woven into the OS as you make it seem."

I know that but try and tell it to the average user. Even many of my techie colleagues aren't game to make changes to their phones for fear of losing some beloved feature. Frankly, I'm amazed at how tolerant people are to this level of surveillance.

That said, much can and does go wrong, resurrecting bricked phones seems to be a pastime of mine. As you know, whether one can decouple Google's spyware subsystem easily or not depends on the phone. If you can't gain access to the OS then it's not possible to roll one's own ASOP-based image or use some other one.

These days, many manufacturers are making it harder and harder to bypass security features, unlock the boot loader and install custom ROMs. Nevertheless I won't buy a phone without first checking whether I can install a custom ROM and it's definitely harder now than it was say five years ago.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#212

Here are a few things I do to combat nasty websites: - blacklists entire domains using wildcards (using an "unbound" DNS resolver and forcing all traffic to my DNS resolver, preventing my browser to use DoH -- I can still then use DoH if I want, from unbound) - reject or drop a huge number of known bad actors, regularly updated: they go into gigantic "ip sets" firewall rules - (I came up with this one): use a little…

I don't do any of that stuff and don't think I am running into nasty websites. What is it supposed to do?

I do uBlock origin with pretty standard lists and have a list of allowed persistent cookies. Are the uBlock lists doing all that work in the background?

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#213

I recommend using an ad-blocker while visiting that site :-/ Lately, I find myself using more and more plugins to make the "modern web" tolerable. To list a few: Channel Blocker (lets me block channels from search results on Youtube); uBlock Origin; Disconnect; F.B Purity; Consent-O-Matic (auto fill cookie consent forms); Kagi Search; PopUpOFF; Facebook Container; Privacy Badger; ClearURLs; Return YouTube Dislike Bas…

Yeah, the permission model in browser plugins is all kinds of messed up.

In absolutely no way is it the plugin's decision where it should be allowed to run. It's great if it self-restricts and we should encourage that, but it's absurd in the extreme that any version of plugin support ever shipped without a way for users to override and restrict them further. Trusting the author of a thing to do what they claim to do is literal security insanity, and it always has been.

Chrome is sightly improving here, with click-to-activate extensions, but it's still pretty far from just giving me a frickin list field.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is only if you have Google Play Services installed.

That's ... near a necessity for most apps. Though I seem to recall GPS shim that's available and which I really should swap in on my BOOX tablet.

Most F-Driod apps don't require Google Play Services. If you can live within the functionality provided by those apps then you're OK.

That said, I know many can't.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#216

I recommend using an ad-blocker while visiting that site :-/ Lately, I find myself using more and more plugins to make the "modern web" tolerable. To list a few: Channel Blocker (lets me block channels from search results on Youtube); uBlock Origin; Disconnect; F.B Purity; Consent-O-Matic (auto fill cookie consent forms); Kagi Search; PopUpOFF; Facebook Container; Privacy Badger; ClearURLs; Return YouTube Dislike Bas…

> Is there a browser that has that feature yet? I spent a few hours trying to figure out if Firefox did. It did not appear to.

I believe this will be supported by manifest v3 extensions in Firefox[1] which is one of the features I'm looking forward to for the same reason.

[1]: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/10/31/begin-your-mv3-mi...

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#217
post #47

Is it time for an open source adblocker that only blocks bad actors? I am perfectly fine with ads, I've previously run sites where it was a small source of income myself. I know it would be in a cat and mouse game with the bad guys but if it blocked most of them it would certainly help a lot of people.

Adblock Plus is already like this and everybody technical quickly realised the reality of an advertising "Whitelist" instantly creates a de facto protection racket where getting an exclusion from the adblocker becomes a valuable commodity. It's worth paying WHATEVER the adblock operator is asking to get on the whitelist. Adblock Plus got big bucks from Google who in turn have saved billions from striking a deal with them. The small guys - well they got screwed - you need to go through certain well financed ad networks to deliver "Acceptable ads". Adblock Plus is still popular for some reason but I don't know any technical people who still use it because well it's corrupt and hostile to its own users and has a clear drop-in replacement.

In the opinion of the vast majority of adblocker users, agree with it or not, ALL advertisers are bad actors. So they will never voluntarily choose filter lists which allow "good ads" the vast majority of the time. As such this will only happen if you get the adblocker to set allowing "acceptable ads" as a default, which makes what you're talking about INTRINSICALLY corrupt and paternalistic. If you want people to actually do this, show up at the houses of Adblock developers with suitcases of money, plenty of drugs, and beautiful prostitutes and whisper sweet stories into their ears about how they can help small businesses find markets for their products. Sadly ublock origin's developers appear to be incorruptible.

Google has figured out trying to push "acceptable ads" any harder is pointless and has instead moved to simply make adblocking technically harder to do by taking control of web standards.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#218
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I care about is hiding/obfuscating my personal information. I just don’t like the idea of giving that away for free, even if it’s actually harmless. I don’t care if I get wrongly labeled/categorized due to this. It’s not like my profile was an accurate representation of who I am before I turned on ad nauseam. If someone gets dragged into a court room for clicking ads, that would be funny, and I doubt they would h…

> All I care about is hiding/obfuscating my personal information. adnauseam does not do this. It only adds to your personal information. It doesn't hide anything. > I don’t care if I get wrongly labeled/categorized due to this. Then you must not care when you suffer the consequences of having been wrongly labeled/categorized. Nobody can make you care about yourself, your money, your safety, or your time if you refuse…

> All I care about is hiding/obfuscating my personal information.

> adnauseam does not do this. It only adds to your personal information. It doesn't hide anything.

It does hide it. It hides it between a bunch of garbage data. That’s the point.

If the CIA wants to assassinate me, a browser extension isn’t going to help. But if I start seeing ads for adult diapers while I’m browsing the internet, I’m going to laugh and feel good about knowing they wasted a few cents.

> Accurate or not, that data will increasingly impact your life in very real ways. The more data they have, the worse it will be for you.

Sorry, but that’s ridiculous. It sounds like FUD a spam blog operator would say lol.

> this isn't actually true, because advertisers don't care. That's why the world is still and increasingly filled with ads that aren't laser focused on you as an individual. We have more and more ads on network TV, on billboards, on radio etc. None of them were stopped because they sometimes showed an ad to someone who doesn't care about it. Seriously, they don't care. You clicked, that's good enough for them. Sales aren't even always the goal. Being seen (or the appearance of being seen) is often all they need.

When something isn’t working, you stop wasting money on it. Ads aren’t going to completely disappear, but if collecting personal data on individuals stops being effective, then marketers will need to turn to other means of targeting. It won’t happen tomorrow, but I did say “long term”

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#219
uBlock Origin seems popular so I checked what permissions the Chrome Web Store says it needs:

"Read and change all your data on all websites" "Change your privacy-related settings"

It feels like this could give the US Government one stop shopping to ... me.

Oh boy, I get my Christmas Goose early this year!

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#220

I recommend using an ad-blocker while visiting that site :-/ Lately, I find myself using more and more plugins to make the "modern web" tolerable. To list a few: Channel Blocker (lets me block channels from search results on Youtube); uBlock Origin; Disconnect; F.B Purity; Consent-O-Matic (auto fill cookie consent forms); Kagi Search; PopUpOFF; Facebook Container; Privacy Badger; ClearURLs; Return YouTube Dislike Bas…

A lot of your privacy related extensions are obsoleted by features in uBlock Origin.

Consent-O-Matic: use annoyances filter list PopUpOFF: sounds useless, use filter list Privacy Badger: sounds useless, use filter list ClearURLs: use url cleaning filter list

Post reply on HN