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

The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

standard.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 445 posts

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#321

Post by alwayslikethis »

drusepth wrote: post #37

Does anyone have any adblockers they recommend that still show "safe" ads (e.g. non-malware) by default, without having to whitelist every site? I'd be open to the security benefits of an adblocker if I could still passively support all the sites I visit. Edit: changed "good" to "safe" for clarity

If you want to harm advertisers while possibly support the sites, you can use AdNauseum, which basically does what uBlock Origin does, but will randomly access a percentage of the ads blocked, to waste the advertiser's money.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#322

Post by tpxl »

mackrevinack wrote: post #304
dredmorbius wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIU it's all F-Droid apps that are GPS-free. I rely on a small handful of others installed from the Aurora, Google Play is a requirement for some of those. I may be hallucinating that shim, though I'm pretty sure it actually exists...

what do you mean by gps free? i have lots of apps installed from fdroid that use gps

Google Play Services, not Global Positioning System.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#323

Post by alwayslikethis »

wardedVibe wrote: post #209
cld8483 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only "good" ads are those you have to specifically go out of your way to view because you want to view them; such as product catalogues. All other ads are physiological assault and should be made illegal. Particularly those ads which exist "IRL" and can't otherwise be blocked, such as billboards.

Waiting for the day when augmented reality glasses let you block irl ads. Realistically it'll be the opposite first of course.

I think the technology is actually more or less there already. We just need a few enterprising individuals to come up with a polished device for that.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#324

Post by Psype »

pmoriarty wrote: post #312
dngray wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consent-O-Matic (auto fill cookie consent forms) This will modify the browser fringerprint making you more unique. I would not install so many extensions as you're trusting a huge number of organizations/people with privileged access to your browser. Anything that modifies CSS, Document Object Model (DOM) will make your browser stand out. We wrote a blog post about this: https://blog.privacyguides.org/2021/12/01/fi…

Trying to avoid tracking on the modern web is a losing battle for any but the most hyperparanoid, consistently careful, and technically astute individuals. For everyone else: you're going to leak identity information one way or another, and it's going to get correlated. The more plugged-in and connected you are, the harder it is to remain anonymous. If you really value your privacy, don't use the internet or any type…

I wish I'd have a plugin that makes the difference before/after accepting cookie consent, always accept, and always flush them between pages.

I know by experience that the key isn't about refusing them, but letting them having those "user accepted" KPI values, even if it goes nowhere behind.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#325

Post by geraldhh »

vinay_ys wrote: post #288

It is simultaneously impressive and sad and hilarious that security of millions of people depend on the work of one volunteer software developer (gorhill – ublock origin) and a bunch of volunteer block-list maintainers.

true

then again, mainstream computing as a hole is largely built upon volunteer work as linux and open source are the basis of mobile _and_ cloud.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#326

Post by pmoriarty »

Psype wrote: post #324
pmoriarty wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to avoid tracking on the modern web is a losing battle for any but the most hyperparanoid, consistently careful, and technically astute individuals. For everyone else: you're going to leak identity information one way or another, and it's going to get correlated. The more plugged-in and connected you are, the harder it is to remain anonymous. If you really value your privacy, don't use the internet or any type…

I wish I'd have a plugin that makes the difference before/after accepting cookie consent, always accept, and always flush them between pages. I know by experience that the key isn't about refusing them, but letting them having those "user accepted" KPI values, even if it goes nowhere behind.

I use uBlock Origin's element picker and element blocker features to just make the popup notices disappear, without accepting them.

But that's mostly just a habit of mine that I know is pretty useless, as websites don't need cookies to track you, and I really don't know why they even bother anymore.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#327

Post by pmoriarty »

doodlesdev wrote: post #226
eNV25 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of your privacy related extensions are obsoleted by features in uBlock Origin. Consent-O-Matic: use annoyances filter list PopUpOFF: sounds useless, use filter list Privacy Badger: sounds useless, use filter list ClearURLs: use url cleaning filter list

uBlock Origin URL filter lists don't work the same as ClearURLs. Privacy Badger is an extension by the EFF. It blocks cookies, that's it. The other one I don't know, but you should stop being condescending when teaching people about things you don't know about. Using uBlock Origin only might be a good option for some cases, but it's not a silver bullet. For reference, ClearURLs can bypass redirects, has etags protect…

What's etags protection?

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#328

Post by geraldhh »

dngray wrote: post #268
bogwog wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use adnauseam ( https://adnauseam.io/ ), which is built on top of ublock origin, and it works pretty well. The generic nuclear option to hide terrible web design, bypass (some) paywalls, and improve performance 1000x is to disable javascript. ublock and adnauseam both have a button to disable all javascript on a page, which is handy when reading articles on sites filled with garbage.

adnauseam makes your browser easier to fingerprint because it drastically changes the browser's behaviour. Do not recommend.

your browser is easy to fingerprint no matter what. but yea, i don't think this is a good idea.

just blocklist known garbage

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#329

Post by Larrikin »

dngray wrote: post #272
emacdona wrote: post #203

I recommend using an ad-blocker while visiting that site :-/ Lately, I find myself using more and more plugins to make the "modern web" tolerable. To list a few: Channel Blocker (lets me block channels from search results on Youtube); uBlock Origin; Disconnect; F.B Purity; Consent-O-Matic (auto fill cookie consent forms); Kagi Search; PopUpOFF; Facebook Container; Privacy Badger; ClearURLs; Return YouTube Dislike Bas…

> Consent-O-Matic (auto fill cookie consent forms) This will modify the browser fringerprint making you more unique. I would not install so many extensions as you're trusting a huge number of organizations/people with privileged access to your browser. Anything that modifies CSS, Document Object Model (DOM) will make your browser stand out. We wrote a blog post about this: https://blog.privacyguides.org/2021/12/01/fi…

I use Ad Nauseum instead of plain UBlock so that the data sent is just garbage. You would think something simple like clicking all the ads wouldn't work, but it works well enough that Google banned it from the Chrome store

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#330

Post by weikju »

emacdona wrote: post #203

I recommend using an ad-blocker while visiting that site :-/ Lately, I find myself using more and more plugins to make the "modern web" tolerable. To list a few: Channel Blocker (lets me block channels from search results on Youtube); uBlock Origin; Disconnect; F.B Purity; Consent-O-Matic (auto fill cookie consent forms); Kagi Search; PopUpOFF; Facebook Container; Privacy Badger; ClearURLs; Return YouTube Dislike Bas…

> IE: I just want to be able to say "Hey, Firefox... those permissions that I granted to plugins x, y, and z? They don't apply to www.myfavoritebank.example.com"

> Is there a browser that has that feature yet? I spent a few hours trying to figure out if Firefox did. It did not appear to.

Safari has the ability to enable/disable extension on a per-site basis... Even on a "ask every time" basis. Thankfully the ask shows up as a lock badge on the extension's icon rather than a popup.

Post reply on HN