Live data from Hacker News

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

standard.co.uk

231–240 of 445 posts

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

#231
post #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!

Do tell me how you can block/remove ads from pages without having read and change?

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

#232
post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

uBlock Origin URL filter lists don't work the same as ClearURLs. Privacy Badger is an extension by the EFF. It blocks cookies, that's it. The other one I don't know, but you should stop being condescending when teaching people about things you don't know about. Using uBlock Origin only might be a good option for some cases, but it's not a silver bullet. For reference, ClearURLs can bypass redirects, has etags protect…

How does Ghostery compare?

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

#233

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…

For anyone curious as to how I solve the problem right now, I just have two separate Firefox profiles. One has a ton of plugins; I use it to browse the web. The other has no plugins; I use it to visit my bank's website.

How is no plugins different than private browsing, assuming you don't allow plugins in private browsing. Is private browsing too strict?

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

#234
post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

uBlock Origin URL filter lists don't work the same as ClearURLs. Privacy Badger is an extension by the EFF. It blocks cookies, that's it. The other one I don't know, but you should stop being condescending when teaching people about things you don't know about. Using uBlock Origin only might be a good option for some cases, but it's not a silver bullet. For reference, ClearURLs can bypass redirects, has etags protect…

Original commenter is right about the feature obsolescence and didn't seem condescending to me. Just more or less critical of the general idea, as one doesn't really need so many extensions for privacy, which most of the list appeared to be tackling.

That said, URL filtering isn't necessarily effective at keeping your behavior private either. There's an argument to be made about ClearURLs and URL filtering in general being counter intuitive, as you might stick out among a sea of other users with marketing params in their URLs.

Still wishing for a Tor-like solution to anonymizing all users on a browser configuration level.

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

#236

Pretty late to the game there, FBI. There are examples going back decades of drive by downloads and exploits from ads on popular websites. It's not enough to avoid shady websites. Any website filled with ads is already a shady website.

Yep. The only time I ever had a malware-infected computer it was one of those drive-bys. You didn't even have to click through the link to the site advertised at all, the browser would just go ahead and start prefetching it, so in case you did, it would seem quicker. And meanwhile the Adobe plugin would just happily start executing whatever code came from it.

I had to thoroughly wipe my computer and the computers of two others that fell to the same malicious ads.

Now ublock origin is standard and no Adobe products are allowed.

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

#237

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…

> Channel Blocker (lets me block channels from search results on Youtube)...

I wish this were possible for the phone app. Every now and then I am recommended a video from one YouTuber in particular that I can't stand. Is there an app for that? I don't think you can block within YouTube, which would be great.

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

#238
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anyone curious as to how I solve the problem right now, I just have two separate Firefox profiles. One has a ton of plugins; I use it to browse the web. The other has no plugins; I use it to visit my bank's website.

How is no plugins different than private browsing, assuming you don't allow plugins in private browsing. Is private browsing too strict?

That's a good question. I don't know -- I never considered private browsing. If I close a private browsing session, are all traces (ie: cookies, history, etc.) of it erased? If so, I don't think that's what I want. I'm okay with my bank (and websites I trust) setting cookies, for example.

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

#239
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.

Just put relevant ads locally and the problem goes away.

By that I mean, if you're a site about say, board wargames, and there's some new board wargame that wants to advertise on your site, ok. Edit your page to add an ad graphic with a link to the seller. That's cool. And maybe the people reading your page will actually want to buy it!

But there's just no way that third-party ads through some generic ad network will ever achieve that fit or reliability. And ads based on tracking people's data and suggesting things based on what you interacted with on social media or whatever? That's always going to be hot garbage at best. Adding in a third-party ad network (and probably behind that brokers and other middlemen) can't possibly make it better, it can only make it worse. So that's what we have today.

But go back to simple static ads relevant to the content of the page and problem solved.

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

#240

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…

Do you use a password manager? Do you visit websites for banks or brokerage firms?

If so, how do you ensure that none of these plugins and extensions steal your data?

Post reply on HN