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

341–350 of 445 posts

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

#341

Post by sirius87 »

panarky wrote: post #240
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…

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?

I use banking and other sensitive sites in a separate browser profile with no extensions installed. On Mac, that would be something like "open -a "Google Chrome" --args --profile-directory=secure" and on Linux "google-chrome --profile-directory=secure".

For the rest of the web in my Default browser profile, I do have ad-blocker extensions installed (uBlock Origin, some Violentmonkey scripts), but they're not linked to the Chrome store. I prefer loading them as unpacked extensions and updating them once in a while manually. Mainly in case some malicious actor takes control of these extensions pushes an update that does something wild.

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

#342

Post by wgm »

emacdona wrote: post #227
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…

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.

What’s the concern about visiting your bank’s website using your standard Firefox profile?

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

#343

Post by exodust »

dngray wrote: post #271

One of the most important things you can do is enable ETP, (Enhanced Tracking Protection), set that to "Strict" and enable sanitizing on close: We have instructions for that https://www.privacyguides.org/desktop-browsers/#firefox

I'd recommend expanding the browser configuration information on your site to include the options found under about:config.

There's a bunch of settings in there not available under the main settings. Eg privacy.resistFingerprinting -- which actually has a bug where your browser suddenly stops opening full screen, even with this setting disabled. Solution is to toggle this setting on and off, restarting browser between toggles, and Firefox will remember to open full screen again next time if that's how you left it.

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

#344

Post by hilbert42 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #230
hilbert42 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

AFAIU it's all F-Droid apps that are GPS-free. I rely on a small handful of others installed from the Aurora, Google Play is a requirement for some of those. I may be hallucinating that shim, though I'm pretty sure it actually exists...

"...I rely on a small handful of others installed from the Aurora, Google Play is a requirement for some of those."

Later thought. I also occasionally install Play Store apps via Aurora Store and it's worth noting that some state that they require Google Play Services but in fact they do work without it (I normally have GPS/Google Play disabled or uninstalled).

I've not bothered to research why but I presume it's the reporting mechanism that's not working, the core operation of these programs being independent of GPS (presumably this would simplify programming if the programmer is also coding the program for iPhone).

I'd be most interested if you or anyone else has more info about this.

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

#345

Post by quickthrower2 »

VerminOctopus1 wrote: post #337
Xenoamorphous wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basically, if I visit a website and don't like the experience, I either never go back (Kagi lets me exclude it from search results) or find a plugin to make it tolerable. If you like a site to go back to it repeatedly don't you think it would be fair to "pay the fee" of seeing the ads, thus supporting that site, however annoying they are?

No. Find another way to monetize your website if you want my money. I’m not enduring ads, they are insidious garbage.

I agree. If you want the benefits of hypertext and http as a medium then the downside is user agents can modify what you send and render as they see fit.

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

#346

Post by bottled_poe »

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…

It’s starting to feel like a content whitelist would be easier than a content blacklist.

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

#347

Post by chongli »

emacdona wrote: post #244
nulbyte wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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…

mine and Google's interests actually align

They really don’t. Some YouTube videos (and channels) are way more profitable for Google than others, on a CPM basis. I think there are even some videos that are just plain money losers (long videos that aren’t packed with mid rolls).

Google wants to steer you towards the most profitable videos and away from the unprofitable ones. They don’t care about your interests. They’d rather trick you into watching videos you don’t like and that get you angry (but keep you engaged) than to watch videos you’re really interested in but are too long and niche and unprofitable.

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

#348

Post by bottled_poe »

wgm wrote: post #342
emacdona wrote: post #227

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.

What’s the concern about visiting your bank’s website using your standard Firefox profile?

Browser plugins generally have privileged access to data exchanges between user and remote server. So, they could potentially spy on you and scrape your secrets.

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

#349

Post by quickthrower2 »

NetOpWibby wrote: post #66
cgb223 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s an IDN and what does blocking them help with?

Mainly homoglyphs. Characters that LOOK like Latin characters but aren't. Scammers register domains to make it look like at a glance you're visiting a reputable site. It's why many browsers started defaulting to showing "xn-- " (punycode representation of IDN characters). It sucks for domains that are emoji but whatevs. Scammers ruining things for everyone, as usual.

Blocking domains with mixed character sets? Might be hard to come up with the rules. But legit sites should stick to one language mostly.

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

#350

Post by quickthrower2 »

wardedVibe wrote: post #202
finnthehuman wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big "DOWNLOAD NOW" ads placed on webpages for software downloads are pretty bad too. Whenever I'm setting up a fresh windows machine I haven't grabbed an adblocker yet and am not used to seeing ads so they get me every now and then.

The number of times I had to yell at family members to NOT CLICK THAT ITS AN AD is maddening. It required getting a pretty nasty virus and a complete wipe to actually convince my dad to install adblock.

The download sites also make the correct arrow smaller and harder to spot so you click on the ad. I was thinking this today: the last thing a download page wants is for you to be successful and download the thing and then f-off
Post reply on HN