Firefox: my new favorite browser.
Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
101–110 of 304 posts
Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Still makes me wonder why Safari can block third party cookies by default, while Mozilla can't.
Two reasons.
1. Because they always have. The precedence was set a long time ago.
2. Because Apple doesn't give a fuck what other people think.
Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just last week I opted in to Firefox's multiprocess branch, and one of my biggest complaints is that this breaks pretty much every extension. I eagerly welcome this if it can replace Ghostery.
Out of curiosity, which extensions are broken for you? I've been running multiprocess Firefox as well, and every extension that I use regularly still works. The only exception was Vimperator, so I had to write my own extension to give Vim keybindings[0], since none of the others support e10s. I'm curious which extensions have given you trouble, since Ghostery, NoScript, and uBlock all work for me (at least for the mo…
Ghostery's icon was still showing up in the UI, but the number always read 0 and it was clearly not blocking anything.
The other two that were broken were FindBar Tweak (highlights ctrl+f results in the scrollbar like Chrome) and TileTabs.
Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
#104Is this more or is it less effective than a large /etc/hosts blacklist? It doesn't seem to be doing anything special like the Privacy Badger. The only relevant sections in the paper I saw were
We implement an API based on Google Safe Browsing, a
mechanism for efficient URL-based blocklist updates and
lookups [9]. We use a subset of approximately 1500 domains
from Disconnect’s privacy-oriented blocklist to identify
these unsafe origins [10]. We update the blocklist every 45
minutes to minimize the effects of incorrect blocklist
entries.
Another open challenge is applying Tracking Protection only
to third-party content. We can avoiding cross-site tracking
by blocking content from high-volume sites such as
facebook.com without breaking them when visited directly.
Heuristics such as the Public Suffix List4 can help better
determine the set of domains that are considered first-
party.
Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
#105Is this more or is it less effective than a large /etc/hosts blacklist? It doesn't seem to be doing anything special like the Privacy Badger. The only relevant sections in the paper I saw were We implement an API based on Google Safe Browsing, a mechanism for efficient URL-based blocklist updates and lookups [9]. We use a subset of approximately 1500 domains from Disconnect’s privacy-oriented blocklist to identify th…
I "did the /etc/hosts" thing for a long time. But it seemed like some things hung and tool longer sometimes. Overall /etc/hosts was a big improvement. Where are the good lists and what is the current thing you map all the bad hosts to (is it localhost, or something else?)?
Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
#106Is this more or is it less effective than a large /etc/hosts blacklist? It doesn't seem to be doing anything special like the Privacy Badger. The only relevant sections in the paper I saw were We implement an API based on Google Safe Browsing, a mechanism for efficient URL-based blocklist updates and lookups [9]. We use a subset of approximately 1500 domains from Disconnect’s privacy-oriented blocklist to identify th…
I "did the /etc/hosts" thing for a long time. But it seemed like some things hung and tool longer sometimes. Overall /etc/hosts was a big improvement. Where are the good lists and what is the current thing you map all the bad hosts to (is it localhost, or something else?)?
Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
#107Is this more or is it less effective than a large /etc/hosts blacklist? It doesn't seem to be doing anything special like the Privacy Badger. The only relevant sections in the paper I saw were We implement an API based on Google Safe Browsing, a mechanism for efficient URL-based blocklist updates and lookups [9]. We use a subset of approximately 1500 domains from Disconnect’s privacy-oriented blocklist to identify th…
I "did the /etc/hosts" thing for a long time. But it seemed like some things hung and tool longer sometimes. Overall /etc/hosts was a big improvement. Where are the good lists and what is the current thing you map all the bad hosts to (is it localhost, or something else?)?
It hangs because it waits to time out. It will fail faster if you set the IP to something impossible instead of merely unavailable.
Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cookies don't matter when browser fingerprinting accomplishes the same task. Read the page you linked to: "We do log records of the CSS and the font file requests, and access to this data is on a need-to-know basis and kept secure." Just like every other Google Privacy Policy, it's insultingly disingenuous, couched in terms of protecting your privacy while actually reserving for themselves the right to violate it by…
Okay, WTF? Name a web server out there that doesnt keep logs. Your constant projecting of ulterior motives, absent any evidence, on a throwaway account, is the very definition of worthless, gratuitously negative content. The guy upthread is complaining that requests are cached for a day. I'm sorry, would y'all prefer that they not be cached?
Google's motive is to make money, and they do that largely through advertising. There's nothing ulterior about the motive I'm suggesting. More information on you means they can charge a higher price for the privilege of advertising certain products or services to you. Of course, the fact that the same information they sell to advertisers is also easily accessible by the government with a mere subpoena, if even that, is of little concern to Google, Eric Schmidt, or remarkably even to many HN posters in this thread.
Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
#109> Advertising does not make content free. It merely externalizes the costs in a way that incentivizes malicious or incompetent players to build things like Superfish, infect 1 in 20 machines with ad injection malware, and create sites that require unsafe plugins and take twice as many resources to load, quite expensive in terms of bandwidth, power, and stability. That's a good point. Reminds me of "coal energy is che…
wait, what? How does custom tailored ads based on your usage patterns harm you? there is an awful lot of adtech hate because its easy to see how poorly implemented adtech can hinder performance, but i dont see how it is malicious in nature.
The fact that an ad is custom tailored to you is concerning in and of itself...
Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Then you didn't read how PrivacyBadger works. PrivacyBadger is awesome. It doesn't work with fixed blocklists but with heuristics, and detects if you get tracked through different sites, subsequentially blocking this. It obviously doesn't work if you just visit one or a few sites with different trackers in 5 minutes. https://www.eff.org/privacybadger#faq-How-does-Privacy-Badge... ? Thanks for this EFF.
No, I only got to this part:
Privacy Badger was born out of our desire to be able to recommend a single extension that would automatically analyze and block any tracker or ad that violated the principle of user consent; which could function well without any settings, knowledge or configuration by the user
And the part where I couldn't manually manipulate what was being blocked. Since apparently multiple pop-up adds on-click were not violating the user principle of consent...