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

µBlock for Firefox

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 273 posts

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#221

Post by Mandatum »

mdellabitta wrote: post #156

I decided to dump extension-based privacy stuff and installed Privoxy instead. I used to have Ghostery, Disconnect, ABP, and some other things running simultaneously. When you think about it, that's a lot of JS running and iterating the DOM multiple times every time you load a page. Now there's a single, purpose-built, standalone process written in C doing it. Not going back.

Unfortunately HTTPS makes proxy-based privacy stuff unusable without invalidating your SSL/TLS certificate in the browser. Extensions are the only reliable method AFAIK for browsing ad-free, securely. That is, if you consider the extension secure.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#222

Post by GrinningFool »

sjwright wrote: post #130
GrinningFool wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it entirely disables Google Analytics on every site. Some might find being tracked across most of the Internet to be a privacy concern. People put google analytics on their site because of the 'free' data they get from google, and I suspect most don't consider that there is a cost - it's just their users that are paying it.

If you think GA is a privacy concern, you should consider services like gmail to be a privacy concern too. Perhaps they should block that too. "Paying for it"? GA doesn't do much that a webmaster couldn't otherwise learn by analysing their webserver log files.

>> If you think GA is a privacy concern, you should consider services like gmail to be a privacy concern too. Perhaps they should block that too.

I'm not sure what one has to do with another. GA is something developers (or marketers) decide to pull into their sites, exposing their users to having their activity tracked across all sites that use GA. gmail is a product that someone elects to use. Apples and oranges.

>> Paying for it"? GA doesn't do much that a webmaster couldn't otherwise learn by analysing their webserver log files.

That's the unfortunate truth; and there are also many free packages that will do similar things -- all of which can be done without tracking people across most of the sites they visit.

Still, none of them are as quick and convenient as dropping in a line of javascript. I just wish that more developers would give thought to whose data they're giving away when they drop in that line of javascript.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#223

Post by quadrangle »

findjashua wrote: post #210

ublock doesn't work on quite a few sites, whereas I've never had an issue with adblock. Couple of examples off the top of my head: 1. giphy: it removes the share and twitter buttons 2. doesn't block ads on hulu There were others as well that I seem to be forgetting (I remember having to disable it on quite a few sites). Good intention (lowering memory consumption), but the execution still has some way to go.

this is just different filter presets. You can change the filters. In my case, I had ABP doing all that same blocking, only I had to opt-in, whereas with ublock that blocking is opt-out.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#224

Post by 01Michael10 »

ultramancool wrote: post #213
01Michael10 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, you had to many things running... What is the advantage of Disconnect when have ABP and Ghostery installed?

Disconnect is an open alternative to Ghostery as Ghostery has some sketchy sponsors.

Unfortunately, Disconnect (new version is $5/month for any protection) is not as good as Ghostery and the sketchy part of it is Ghostrank which is easily disabled.

Your answer was unrelated to my question... mdellabitta stated he was running Disconnect with ABP and Ghostery all together which is redundant and I was asking why he would be doing that.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#225

Post by pekk »

Tobu wrote: post #211
mdellabitta wrote: post #156

I decided to dump extension-based privacy stuff and installed Privoxy instead. I used to have Ghostery, Disconnect, ABP, and some other things running simultaneously. When you think about it, that's a lot of JS running and iterating the DOM multiple times every time you load a page. Now there's a single, purpose-built, standalone process written in C doing it. Not going back.

This doesn't work with the push to HTTPS. Either you use proxy connect, and Privoxy is no better than /etc/hosts blocking. Or you'd rely on the proxy's poorer and slower implementation of TLS. Certificate verification will suffer (no certificate pinning, no certificate blacklist, no OCSP stapling, no way to verify incomplete chains), no SPDY, no sunsetting of bad ciphers or bad protocols.

Is there some reason in principle why you can't constructively MITM yourself without using piles of Javascript in the browser?

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#226

Post by quadrangle »

beagle3 wrote: post #187
hurin wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... I'm not asking about why you'd want one. - I'm asking about why you'd make a new one and who would pay for your work on a new one when others already exist?

But that is the same question. Not everyone is trying to maximize their wealth all the time. Do you ask "why did Linus write Linux when there were other operating systems available at the time and no one was paying him for it?" or similarly the Atheos.cx guy? Gnome when there was KDE? Gimp when there was Photoshop? Facebook when there was MySpace?

The last one isn't comparable to the others. The original Facebook made by that other guy Aaron Greenspan arguably was just someone doing something because it was useful. Zuckerberg and co. made what is today's Facebook specifically to gain profit and power.

But your point is well-made otherwise. The answer to "why?" for uBlock and others is "because people care enough to do it."

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#227

Post by quadrangle »

sjwright wrote: post #125
oconnore wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't get the privilege of having their data analyzed and used to market products back to them. Some of the marketing people on here will probably find that to be horrendous. Where is my relevant promoted content?!

If most geeks end up blocking GA (in most cases without realising it) then the audience of geek-focused content might end up being severely under-reported to publishers. This will only accelerate the mainstreamification of our culture.

You're right. We should all start reading all our spam messages and actively buying all the products we can tolerate. Otherwise, the spam will only be for crap we don't like…

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#228

Post by quadrangle »

sjwright wrote: post #106

Amazing work. One concern is that the EasyPrivacy‎ list -- which is in my opinion overly aggressive -- is enabled by default. Most pertinently, it entirely disables Google Analytics on every site.

The aggressors here are the people tracking everyone's activities not the ones blocking that tracking.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#230

Post by tux »

Awesome exactly what I was looking for. Because AdBlock Plus is extremely slow at times. Also uBlock provides many more filters. Thank You!
Post reply on HN