71–80 of 304 posts
Or do this:
1. in the address bar type about:config, press return
2. search for privacy.trackingprotection.enabled
3. change the value to true
4. all done
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So does this FF mode that blocks them entirely also risk breaking the pages?
Yes, it does, though for slightly different reasons. Mainly, it can break pages with first-party scripts that depend on blocked third-party scripts. I've encountered and reported a few of these while testing the feature.
Rather than "ga is undefined" the ga.whatever function would just return without sending any data.
Do any third-party script blocking systems do this?
I'm surprised that Mozilla didn't enable this feature by default. They're either serious about differentiating themselves on the privacy front, or not. It's the every day users who need this protection, not the more advanced users who probably already use an adblock extension.
They're very cautiously dipping their toe in the water given the holy shitstorm that happened a couple years ago when they announced they were going to block third party cookies by default. I imagine that doing it this way means they can show metrics that blocking in this way doesn't meaningfully affect bottom lines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's on Google's servers, then clearly Mozilla employees aren't the only ones with access to it, and the anonymization he's referring to is mere IP address anonymization, where the last octet of an IPv4 address is zeroed. The viability of browser fingerprinting as demonstrated by the EFF's Panopticlick shows cookies, cross-domain or otherwise, are no longer the only viable means to persistently tracking users.
Google obviously have systems in place to allow employee access for absolute emergencies - but alarmed in case of unauthorised access. in any case, the analytics data is anonymised and as such cannot be used to identify you. google goes to huge lengths anonymising data to aggregate you as a user into groups of millions for advertisers to bid on, you are simply not a big enough fish for special treatment. edit: an exp…
> google goes to huge lengths anonymising data to aggregate you as a user into groups of millions for advertisers to bid on, you are simply not a big enough fish for special treatment
You're mixing different products and people here. That may be true of Google Analytics data (I don't know either way), but it's not true for their advertising services. Google purposely tracks individual people in a non-anonymous way in order to sell remarketing products, to e.g. show a banner of items currently in your Amazon shopping cart alongside an article you're reading at CNN through their AdSense/DoubleClick platforms.
If you want to turn on (enable) tracking protection in FF, hit the following link https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection-fir... Or do this: 1. in the address bar type about:config , press return 2. search for privacy.trackingprotection.enabled 3. change the value to true 4. all done
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You find it very, very hard to get outraged because you either use GA yourself and do not wish to acknowledge your complicity in the matter or you've simply failed to make the obvious leap from analytics to clickstream data. Google wants to know what web pages you visit, when, and how often, and a GA beacon that phones home that information placed on every web page is the easiest way for them to do it. EDIT: there ar…
> why they offer to host frequently requested assets like JQuery Let's not forget the Google Fonts, which exist to "make web beautiful". How adorable and altruistic. Yay! /throws-confetti
How does this compare to something like Privacy Badger[1]? I haven't done any benchmarking, but if it causes similar slowdowns, it isn't bothersome and the benefits are definitely worth it. [1] https://www.eff.org/privacybadger
I tried Privacybadger for about 5 minutes: it was awful (significantly worse than ABP), - it's shameful that the EFF wasted donation money to finance a crap project like that, rather than support e.g. https://github.com/gorhill
https://www.eff.org/privacybadger#faq-How-does-Privacy-Badge...? Thanks for this EFF.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Create an iTunes Store, App Store, or iBooks Store account without a credit card or other payment method" https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204034
Which leads to: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203905 " If you're using the iTunes Store or App Store for the first time If you're using the store for the first time with an existing Apple ID, you must provide a payment method. After you create the account, you can change your payment information to None." I've always end up back in UX loops wanting my credit card since I seem to need a new version that is free bu…
They have been always been available for download from the Apple site:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd also like a comparison with ublock and/or ghostery. It appears that this becomes enabled after the blocking plugins.
ublock is more about ads, and this is tracking. While they usually come hand in hand, Facebook ads (eg: while on facebook) don't add additional tracking.
"uBlock Origin (or uBlock₀) is not an ad blocker; it's a general-purpose blocker."
It will report everything to the user -- including behind-the-scene network requests [2].
---
[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#philosophy
[2] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Behind-the-scene-netw...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ublock is more about ads, and this is tracking. While they usually come hand in hand, Facebook ads (eg: while on facebook) don't add additional tracking.
So perhaps it's more like ghostery than an adblocker.