141–150 of 177 posts
Unfortunately, Cloudflare and other protections will keep working even less than they used to. I have started to not use Cloudflare protected websites because they don’t work with Firefox. But that is a fight I am going to lose.
Unfortunately, Cloudflare and other protections will keep working even less than they used to. I have started to not use Cloudflare protected websites because they don’t work with Firefox. But that is a fight I am going to lose.
I run exclusively Firefox over known mullvad VPN endpoints and I never have any issues with cloudflare or its captcha.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's really handy! I like that it handles domains automatically Edit: Seems to break ad blocking and there's some issues with login. Such as adding a container for YouTube requires also doing *.google.com since that's how the login is handled. Interesting and I'll keep playing around with it
Usually, with most browsers, you can't separate YouTube from Google in order to watch their videos. People can get around this using NewPipe and various forks, that are mostly for Android. There is also FreeTube for the desktop, that doesn't allow ads, but does connect to Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You probably mean Temporary Containers…? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-con...
I've recently switched from Containerise + Temporary Containers to Auto Containers. Brand new addon, but the dev is responsive and IMO it works much better for creating new containers on the fly as you browse. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/auto-containe... https://github.com/Shajirr/FF-Auto-Containers
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. And this technique becomes more effective as the number of people using it increases. It's easy to match up randomized fingerprints if only one person is doing it, but quite hard when thousands or millions are doing it.
dont use randomized fingerprints, spoof actual fingerprints, randomly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is a good use of Firefox resources. Unfortunately Firefox is at a natural disadvantage for fingerprinting by virtue of being used by such a small number of users. I'd rather be trackable but secure -- the big draw for me is NoScript. Paired with uBlock, I'm safe from malvertising[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising#Examples_of_malic...
You're more trackable by using NoScipt and there's no good reason to use it if you know how to properly use uBlock: https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/4.1-Extensions#-don... uBlock is a content blocker so it can do everything NoScript can if you learn its advanced UI usage. Using additional extensions makes you more trackable.
What data do you have to support this assertion? uBlock doesn't seem to have the ability to selectively enable only JS nessecary for functionality, and if it does, the UI makes it much more difficult to enable.
I just ran a test -- merely uBlock use renders me unique, whereas one in 5742.77 had the same fingerprint as me when using NoScript. (I suspect that's the number of people also using Firefox with NoScript who own this particular monitor size)
A big chunk of the fingerprinting techniques require JS -- it's pretty hard to ascertain what specific extensions are installed with it. I tested disabling it and it didn't seem to do much difference in terms of bits of entropy on EFF's tool.
I encourage you to try for yourself and then think hard on your advice.
I exclusively use private browsing, but I know that doesn't do much in preventing tracking, so it's nice to see this finally starting to roll out. The fact that I have to go to great lengths to browse anonymously - and companies desperately try to circumvent my genuine decision to opt out of their tracking - tells me everything I need to know about those companies. Words like sleezy, shady, and predatory come to mind…
The "Temporary Containers" extension is great here, allowing pretty easy compromise between different buckets of sites. I'll have some personal ones that I log into, others go specifically into a snoop container, and the rest get temporary ones that evaporate when closed. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/temporary-con...
I briefly discussed this extension and how to proceed after the passing of a maintainer with Mozilla staff in their Extensions and People teams at FOSDEM this year, but there was no real procedures in place at the time of our chat.
[0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/temporary-con...
[1]: https://github.com/stoically/temporary-containers/issues/634
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm fairly confident I could sue that store owner for stalking if they were logging every time I entered that store and left, along with all my activities. I'm absolutely positive I could if they were getting other store owners to help them track me. What I don't understand is why this is unacceptable if they do it to a single person but perfectly normal if they do it to all their customers. IMO that should make thin…
Doesn't your (proverbial) Costco membership card track every time you enter and leave the store? Doesn't seem like anyone is suing them... Also, if they were logging you specifically, you may have grounds to stand on. But if they're logging every customer that comes in/out (like websites do), I think there is a lot less grounds for a restraining order or anything Edit: Found out I'm using 'proverbial' wrong but I thi…
Ok but you say - It is not this overt online - well if we live digital life, lot of things are not overt, but we know we need to clean cookies, some of us create containers, some of us use TOR, so the sensibilities in digital are different than real life, and I am showing pretty much equivalent examples / metaphors if the same level of intrusiveness was there in real life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Doesn't your (proverbial) Costco membership card track every time you enter and leave the store No (you have to use it at the register for Costco to know you were there), and they don't track your every movement in store either, and they don't track your every movement outside the store either, and there isn't a standard way to say "I don't want this" which they nonetheless choose to ignore.
> No (you have to use it at the register for Costco to know you were there), Not the case where I am: Costco scans everyone's card upon entry into the store. > and they don't track your every movement in store either, It might: Costco certainly uses security cameras, and it's possible that Costco may be using some sort of AI / facial recognition software alongside the cameras. Perhaps someone who has worked with Cost…
Not the case where I am: You just ask for a "code 99", because they are legally required to sell alcohol to nonmembers where I am. I'm sure there are other loopholes too ("I want to browse to see if I want to join"), but nonetheless, no tracking for me.
> it's possible that Costco may be using some sort of AI / facial recognition software alongside the cameras
It's possible that they have a magic genie that grants wishes to shoppers who rub the right pallet, but if we have no evidence of either, we need not entertain such hypotheticals.
> Probably true, although who knows whether Costco purchases data about its members from brokers?
Those brokers are literally the people to whom we're comparing Costco. If Costco must outsource the act in question to the brokers even in the analogy, then Costco is not analogous to the brokers.
I exclusively use private browsing, but I know that doesn't do much in preventing tracking, so it's nice to see this finally starting to roll out. The fact that I have to go to great lengths to browse anonymously - and companies desperately try to circumvent my genuine decision to opt out of their tracking - tells me everything I need to know about those companies. Words like sleezy, shady, and predatory come to mind…
> I would love to see this taken one step further and have states/countries prevent companies from tracking me altogether if I reject their cookies You're in luck since EU's GDPR is about informing users of PII harvesting and consent in general (among other things). So the banner is not only about cookies. And I think nowadays there are similar regulations elsewhere.