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

Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

monica-at-mozilla.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 304 posts

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#281

Post by acdha »

pdkl95 wrote: post #85
acdha wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple accounts are free. You can't use iTunes with a free account or get the premium developer offerings (i.e. iOS developer certs) but you don't need to pay to use the OS or get updates.

You seem to be under the impression that you can create one of those "free accounts" without apple tracking those activities . Privacy is not having anybody be able to log your activity, not "everybody but one company I like". Apple's walled garden approach to everything makes apple one of the worst offenders with regards to not just privacy, but freedom as well.

That's a great area to discuss but not relevant to what we were talking about. The point I was referring to was the specific claim that you needed to give Apple a credit card to use OS X.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#282

Post by x0054 »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #256
IBM wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android devices aren't encrypted by default, Google backtracked on that. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/03/google-quietly-backs-...

Google devices are, as I said. Mentioning that other Android devices aren't is like saying other Linux distros don't use RPM in response to a statement that Redhat does.

So are iOS devices that have a passcode and are running iOS 8, and with fingerprint scanning a lot more people have password locked devices. Good article on the subject is here:

http://www.darthnull.org/2014/10/06/ios-encryption

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#283

Post by riking »

nextos wrote: post #57
chippy wrote: post #5

"To enable Tracking Protection in Firefox 35 and later, visit about:config and set privacy.trackingprotection.enabled to true" Edits - This quote from the article is interesting, especially considering Google the worlds biggest advertising industry company also has a browser. "That Firefox is first and foremost a user-agent, not an industry-agent"

Seems like a nice feature. I just enabled it and there's some overlap with ublock origin. That is, when I load some pages with tracking protection and ublock, the number of requests blocked by ublock is smaller (but still far from 0). After looking at Firefox log, it doesn't seem this feature blocks anything that was not blocked by ublock. But this might be wrong, I only tested a few sites, and I have no idea about t…

Yep, people looked and it's using filter lists, just less of them.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#285

Post by riking »

core2 wrote: post #253
quotemstr wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your view is incompatible with the idea that I should be able to run any program I can write. Personal freedom ought to trump commercial interests. Once your bits arrive at my computer, they're no longer yours. They're mine, and I can mangle them however I want.

I perfectly understand your position of freedom. However, you should understand that the articles you read, are written by people. They have families to support. If you as visitor are not willing to pay, who will pay the salaries of all writers in the world? The website is a trader, the visitor is a customer. The trader is agreeing to sell the content to the customer if the customer pays the price - view ads (or pay…

> The visitor agrees with this and receives the content.

I'm sorry, on most websites, if I come from HN or IRC or whatever, I don't recall being forced to agree to shit before being able to read the content. Unless your site is Quora.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#287

Post by marcosdumay »

manigandham wrote: post #248
marcosdumay wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having something worse around does not make ad networks better. Yes, Facebook is a bigger problem. State level universal surveillance is even bigger. Fighting any one of the three is worthwhile.

I think you skipped the part that ad networks only keep about 30-60 days of data. Keeping things forever doesn't help when targeting ads to user intent, which changes pretty frequently. It's also anonymized and we don't have personal information like names or addresses. You're also discounting the value it brings to lots of consumers, marketers and website publishers alike to have relevant messages. I really dont und…

Look, I'm one of those few people that likes ads. I get how ads subsidizes free things, but well, it doesn't really matter because I like good ads by themselves.

Yet, I block ads on most sites because I don't like being tracked. The argument is quite simple. I don't know you (ad network), and I don't want you to watch everything I do. I'm pretty sure you won't do anything bad with that data, but I don't like it anyway.

I'm quite ok with my bank knowing what I spend money on, because I do know them, I have a choice on what bank to use, and because the service they provide me does require that data. None of that is exactly true for ads.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#288

Post by lern_too_spel »

x0054 wrote: post #280
lern_too_spel wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have evidence that Apple does? They have made no claims that they do, instead continuously pointing to human vetting as their filter on malware, which is laughable. We all know that unskilled contractors stepping through some policy checklist aren't a legitimate protection against malware, but it's enough to fool people like Gruber, many bloggers, and you 14 hours ago before I pointed out your mistake.

If the only thing Apple does is simply pay people to poke around the app on an iPhone for a few minutes, then by that assertion there should be a stunning amount of Malware on the AppStore. I mean, all you have to do is place a time delay code, or a server side activation procedure, and you would be able to bypass all manual checks. What on earth makes you think that Apple does NOT use malware scanning. I mean, it's…

You've made so many mistakes of logic and fact, it's hard to figure out where I should begin. First, itself "wild" and not "wiled". Second, Apple doesn't allow "virus scanners," which is why you'll never hear companies like Sophos talking about malware on iOS -- they have nothing to gain. If you are in the right circles, you know there is plenty of malware on the App Store -- it's significantly easier to get it on the App Store than it is to get it on the Play Store. The main deterrent to malware on both platforms is the requirement that the app publisher have a credit card, which the stores both verify. If a publisher behaves badly, their identity is already known through their bank. Finally, you seem to be confusing manual scanning, static analysis, dynamic analysis, and human review to the point where it's hard to even figure out what you're claiming. Google implemented dynamic analysis long before 2014 (your "wiled west"), which Apple very clearly still hasn't done.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#289

Post by bad_user »

comrade1 wrote: post #143
devsquid wrote: post #133

Man, ads are great. They allow content to be targeted towards people that could potentially not afford the content and towards people that might not necessarily use the product normally. The world is already significantly divided by wealth. Assuming someone poor even has access to a service like Google, imagine if it was behind a paywall. Could they afford it? If not imagine how much of a life advantage someone wealt…

You're trying too hard. Before Google the Internet was more useful. Smaller and more content focused. I'd gladly go back to hotbot or whatever to get away from Google and their ilk. A combination of disconnect, Adblock pro, and self destructing cookies gets me there.

I remember very well the Internet before Google. It was a cesspool of junk, with banner ads being very common. You must have been living in a different world back then.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#290

Post by PhantomGremlin »

x0054 wrote: post #152
kibwen wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That $300 million is coming from Yahoo now, actually.

Does it really take $300 million dollars per year to develop a browser? Ok, fine, a browser, an OS, and a programming language? I am more curious than anything, are there other things that Mozilla does that I am missing?

I've also struggled with understanding what Mozilla does with that much money. It's a staggering amount.

As for someone else's reply to you, same question. What in the world do they do with 1000 people?

And yet they can't develop something useful, like e.g. an improved alternative to Certificate Patrol? That way TÜRKTRUST Bilgi İletişim ve Bilişim Güvenliği Hizmetleri A.Ş. (first certificate in my browser) can't compromise my browsing in the USA. Fine to use them for someone browsing to a website in Elbonia, not so fine for anything that I would ever do.

Edit: just to be clear, Turktrust actually did abuse their privileged position, and Mozilla did get rid of them. But why were they there in the first place, and what about the 100 or 1000 other certificates that Firefox comes with?

Post reply on HN