Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

standard.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 445 posts

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

#311

Post by worldsavior »

nix23 wrote: post #301
worldsavior wrote: post #300

Removing ads only makes you more unique. As most users don't block ads, by using an ad blocker sites can identify you more by knowing you use an ad blocker. It is more comfortable, but it's preferred using a wide DNS ad blocker as sites can only know that for some reason the DNS server can't resolve their domains. DNS ad blocker can also increase uniqueness. Using an ad blocker extension can also cause security issue…

>Using an ad blocker extension can also cause security issues, But loading ad's are the much greater security issue. And if you care about "uniqueness" you have that already with your IP, so you should start there with yourOwnVPN, TOR etc.

> But loading ad's are the much greater security issue.

How so? You're just retrieving the data and displaying it.

> And if you care about "uniqueness" you have that already with your IP

There are many ISP's that use NAT to save IP addresses, hence an IP is not really an identifier. Even if not, an IP is identifieing the all network, and all the ones that are connected to the same network. You can see how in YouTube (incognito mode) you will always get personalized videos based on your IP approximate geolocation (usually just the state) if it's your first time.

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

#312

Post by pmoriarty »

dngray wrote: post #272
emacdona wrote: post #203

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…

> Consent-O-Matic (auto fill cookie consent forms) This will modify the browser fringerprint making you more unique. I would not install so many extensions as you're trusting a huge number of organizations/people with privileged access to your browser. Anything that modifies CSS, Document Object Model (DOM) will make your browser stand out. We wrote a blog post about this: https://blog.privacyguides.org/2021/12/01/fi…

Trying to avoid tracking on the modern web is a losing battle for any but the most hyperparanoid, consistently careful, and technically astute individuals.

For everyone else: you're going to leak identity information one way or another, and it's going to get correlated. The more plugged-in and connected you are, the harder it is to remain anonymous.

If you really value your privacy, don't use the internet or any types of computers, including phones, and never go outside.

It's a cat and mouse game, and the cats have won.

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

#313

Post by alwayslikethis »

emacdona wrote: post #203

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…

I use most of what you are using, but with temporary containers on Firefox, meaning that all the cookies from random sites are not persistent, so I don't need to worry too much about unwanted tracking. When I do want to let a website keep cookies, I just assign it to a specific container. There is also SponsorBlock to save time on YouTube and Libredirect to use privacy respecting frontends.

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

#315

Post by alwayslikethis »

bdlowery wrote: post #260
hilbert42 wrote: post #173

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…

Man, some people are just crazy. You’re so hell bent on using android you limit the functionality of your phone to it essentially just being a brick. Buy an iPhone, install an ad blocker, disable all the tracking, and be done with it while still being able to use the features of the phone you bought.

Imagine not being able to have root, uBlock origin, or third party Youtube clients. Oh, and now also, sending every one of your pictures to Apple so they can call the cops on you to cover their asses[1].

1.https://sneak.berlin/20230115/macos-scans-your-local-files-n...

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

#316

Post by pmoriarty »

rcarr wrote: post #246
emacdona wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so (I looked). Best I could find was some articles online claiming you can add "-unwantedChannel '...'" to your YouTube search to exclude individual channels. I didn't even test it because it would be WAY to cumbersome. Maybe that's all Channel Blocker does under the covers -- add a bunch of those switches to my search. What frustrates me the most is that this is one place where mine and Google's intere…

Doesn't help for searching for new stuff, but you can subscribe to channels using rss feeds. From my experience, it helps avoid getting sucked down the YouTube rabbit hole

You can almost certainly be uniquely identified from the combination of feeds your RSS reader polls regularly, combined with your location, if the feeds alone are not enough.

The more feeds you subscribe to, the more unique your fingerprint.

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

#317

Post by alwayslikethis »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #132
madars wrote: post #71

Or, in other words, FBI now recommends using Android :-) It's baffling how much better uBlock Origin + Firefox experience on Android is compared to any iOS ad blocker I have tried. They kind-of work but let half of the ads through.

meh there are adblockers on iphone that do about 90% of what ublocker does (defaults, not tweaked). Good enough for me to not have google in my life.

Apple snoops on your pictures. [1]

https://sneak.berlin/20230115/macos-scans-your-local-files-n...

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

#318

Post by nix23 »

worldsavior wrote: post #311
nix23 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Using an ad blocker extension can also cause security issues, But loading ad's are the much greater security issue. And if you care about "uniqueness" you have that already with your IP, so you should start there with yourOwnVPN, TOR etc.

> But loading ad's are the much greater security issue. How so? You're just retrieving the data and displaying it. > And if you care about "uniqueness" you have that already with your IP There are many ISP's that use NAT to save IP addresses, hence an IP is not really an identifier. Even if not, an IP is identifieing the all network, and all the ones that are connected to the same network. You can see how in YouTube…

>How so? You're just retrieving the data and displaying it.

Yeah displaying data...that cant be dangerous ;)

>There are many ISP's that use NAT to save IP addresses, hence an IP is not really an identifier.

Do you really think your argumentation is good?

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

#319

Post by alwayslikethis »

rmason wrote: 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.

Most ads are bad. I think uBlock Origin's list leaves most static banners intact. I don't mind seeing ads too much if they are the same for everyone that visits the website and is relevant to the content.

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

#320

Post by geraldhh »

sidlls wrote: post #131
contravariant wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wondering if those still are the majority, worldwide. Smart-phones have done a lot to democratize computing power (now if only they weren't used to put >90% of their users in corporate controlled walled gardens...)

Smart phones didn’t change anything here: 99% of their users didn’t care about the “open” nature of desktops before they were a thing, too. A vanishingly small percentage of computer users care about tinkering and openness. It’s been decades since tinkerers and hackers were the majority of computer users.

one could argue that the mobile era has put computers in the hands of the vast majority of people on the planet that couldn't even be bothered to operate a pc.
Post reply on HN