251–260 of 836 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on what lists you use. If you use uBlock Origin, and enable most of the lists, it'll target both.
Go try it with fingerprint.com. Even post-sanitization, pi-hole, you name it, it will be surprising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also try to profile for things like political beliefs.
I don’t see this article showing that. They query for extensions that could be used to do that, and that likely already is illegal, but those queries could solely be used to uniquely identify users (grabbing more bits makes it less likely to get collisions)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When "the browser is the OS", scanning that is a pretty big chunk of "your computer".
but the language of "your computer" implies files on your computer, as it would be what people commonly call it. Merely just the extension is not enough. If it has the ability to scan your bookmarks, or visited site history, that would lend more credence to using the term "computer". The title ought to have said "linkedIn illegally scans your browser", and that would make clear what is being done without being sensat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not anymore. You can just find one on the app store and install it, almost exactly the same as you do in a browser's extension "store". It won't be as good as uBlock but it certainly works fine even in Safari.
Which do you use? I was unaware that Apple even let such apps on the App Store. I always assumed that their ToS would strictly prohibit it.
The headline seems pretty misleading. Here’s what seems to actually be going on: > Every time you open LinkedIn in a Chrome-based browser, LinkedIn’s JavaScript executes a silent scan of your installed browser extensions. The scan probes for thousands of specific extensions by ID, collects the results, encrypts them, and transmits them to LinkedIn’s servers. This does seem invasive. It also seems like what I’d expect…
> this is why I run ad blockers. It's pretty wild that we live in a world where the actual FBI has recommended we use ad blockers to protect ourselves, and if everyone actually listened, much of the Internet (and economy) as we know it would disappear. The FBI is like "you should protect yourself from the way that the third largest company in the world does business", and the average person's response is "nah, that w…
The headline seems pretty misleading. Here’s what seems to actually be going on: > Every time you open LinkedIn in a Chrome-based browser, LinkedIn’s JavaScript executes a silent scan of your installed browser extensions. The scan probes for thousands of specific extensions by ID, collects the results, encrypts them, and transmits them to LinkedIn’s servers. This does seem invasive. It also seems like what I’d expect…
Why exactly does Chrome even allow this in the first place!? This is the most surprising takeaway for me here, given browser vendors' focus on hardening against fingerprinting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not anymore. You can just find one on the app store and install it, almost exactly the same as you do in a browser's extension "store". It won't be as good as uBlock but it certainly works fine even in Safari.
Which do you use? I was unaware that Apple even let such apps on the App Store. I always assumed that their ToS would strictly prohibit it.
There's also been other adblock apps for a long while, though (adguard comes to mind).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this is why I run ad blockers. It's pretty wild that we live in a world where the actual FBI has recommended we use ad blockers to protect ourselves, and if everyone actually listened, much of the Internet (and economy) as we know it would disappear. The FBI is like "you should protect yourself from the way that the third largest company in the world does business", and the average person's response is "nah, that w…
Don't worry, soon you'll need to pay every website 5.99 a month because AI is destroying click through rates. The internet will likely be far worse without ads than with ads. Solving the tracking problem doesn't need to be mixed up with blocking ads outright. What's funny is that tracking isn't nearly as meaningful for click through rates on ads as relevance to what's on the page, and yet so much effort is placed ont…
Ads are a symptom of the problem that people want human generated content for free; they either do not value the content enough to pay for it, or cannot afford it. Ads do not solve for those problems.
All I'm seeing is that Chrome apparently is failing to properly sandbox websites against extension fingerprinting. Sure, this can be solved at the legal layer, but in this case, there seems to be a much simpler and more effective technical solution, so why not pursue that instead?