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

371–380 of 445 posts

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

#371

Post by LinuxBender »

hilbert42 wrote: post #356
LinuxBender wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still here. I've used a browser on my phone exactly once to register my phone. With exception to that one time I only use Firefox on Linux on an old PC.

Why did you bother to register your phone then? I've used many smartphones and never registered any of them. I wouldn't give the time of day to Google or Apple let alone my personal details. Similarly, I use Firefox on Linux but I also regularly browse the web or post to HN on a phone that's been heavily deloused of Google using Firefox and other browsers—but never Chrome.

I've used many smartphones and never registered any of them.

When I say register, I meant sign up for the wireless service. I did not already have an account. I was on my wifi and browsed to the wireless provider to activate my sim card and get a phone number. I could have done this on my PC but doing that on my cell verified with the vendor that my phone was supported since I am using an off-brand device. It was easier to copy the IMEI that way.

For Googles app store I used a throw away Gmail address that is not used anywhere else. I would love to put a new image on the phone but AFAIK there are no custom roms for my make/model of device. I would love to install GrapheneOS but they have sadly limited device support to Pixel. I am learning more about using adb since this is my first smart phone and with time I will neuter Google without replacing the rom, hopefully. It's mostly harmless for now since I rarely have the phone on.

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

#372

Post by docmars »

pmoriarty wrote: post #326
Psype wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Try using the extension "I don't care about cookies"

It's excellent. I have needed to disable it occasionally to make basic site functionality work on some sites that I absolutely need to use, though I'm forgetting which ones.

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

#373

Post by emacdona »

emsixteen wrote: post #295
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…

I currently use an add-on to block search engine results (Highlight or Hide Search Engine Results[1]) so Kagi sounded interesting, but the free tier having a limit of 50 searches puts it out of the realm of even giving it a trial period for me. I really like the idea about a sort of global blacklist for your permissions. [1] https://github.com/pistom/hohser

Yeah, I should have mentioned that Kagi isn't free. I was _thrilled_ to pay for it, though base on just two things:

1. I was all but certain it couldn't provide worse search results than Google (that bar is pretty low now).

2. I knew it would let me exclude websites from search results.

The fact that it provides pretty decent search results and a nice user experience were just icing on the cake.

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

#374

Post by yubiox »

JohnFen wrote: post #151
giobox wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While these are all good practices, killing DoH conclusively on your home network is more difficult than you've made it seem, as ultimately all you can really do is use domain blacklists at your firewall. It's no longer as straight forward as just control port 53 traffic, not like you can realistically shut down 443... Blocking DoH is largely whack-a-mole and I think is only going to get worse as this and similar tec…

> killing DoH conclusively on your home network is more difficult than you've made it seem True. I had to install a system to MITM all my https traffic in order to block DoH requests.

Can you give any more detail on how you did this? Is squid the proxy? How does it know which traffic is doh? What do you do with those requests?

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

#375

Post by devnullbrain »

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.

Should we also not use uncommon resolutions, uncommon browsers, uncommon OSes?

The personal and societal effect of ads are more tangible than the personal effect of tracking. Even if networks are truly able to use this data, it doesn't matter how precisely you can be served with ads if you don't see them.

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

#376

Post by josephcsible »

tsimionescu wrote: post #291
josephcsible wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't control it as a network administrator You can't control it as a malicious censor who's trying to control what Web sites other people's computers can access just because they're on your Wi-Fi. You can absolutely control it on computers that are actually yours.

If a malicious app on your system is using DoH, how can you control it? This is what GP was complaining about. Of course, this is not the fault of DoH providers themselves - at worst, they have just made it easier to perform this.

Because if it's your system, you can remove the malicious app from it.

And it's a good thing that DoH is easy, because it helps protect vulnerable people from censorship and surveillance.

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

#377

Post by devnullbrain »

autoexec wrote: post #40
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 is seriously a terrible idea. It's actually dangerous. The idea that you can somehow trick advertisers by polluting your dossier and making it useless to them after filling it with random data is fundamentally flawed. Every scrap of data collected about you will be used against you. It doesn't matter if it's accurate or not, nobody cares if they data they have about you is accurate, data brokers will happil…

These theoretical problems sound like compelling reasons to damage parties that sell this information as much as possible.

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

#378

Post by whiw »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #36

Here are a few things I do to combat nasty websites: - blacklists entire domains using wildcards (using an "unbound" DNS resolver and forcing all traffic to my DNS resolver, preventing my browser to use DoH -- I can still then use DoH if I want, from unbound) - reject or drop a huge number of known bad actors, regularly updated: they go into gigantic "ip sets" firewall rules - (I came up with this one): use a little…

> (I came up with this one): use a little firewall rule that prevents any IDN from resolving. That's a one line UDP rule and it stops cold dead any IDN homograph attack. Basically searching any UDP packet for the "xn--" string.

I couldn't see how to do this in Windows Firewall. Which OS/firewall/rule are you using?

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

#379

Post by culopatin »

happybuy wrote: post #117
gigatexal wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The app works well enough but I deleted it. After setting it all up there’s no mention that it will work without the subscription. There’s no mode to say “continue without the subscription using the free services” just a very large button and a description of the price to subscribe. That’s hella sus. Also the very first screen doesn’t let you opt out of notifications or skip it with “setup later” etc etc — these cust…

Appreciate the feedback. We'll take it on board for improvements in the future. We recently moved to a paid app model with a 30-day free trial available (from a freemium app model). Understand that this is not as appealing as a free-forever product. We found that we had hundreds of thousands of free users and not enough paid users. After developing the app for many years under this model, we had to make some changes…

Understandable, but if I’m getting ads because I’m not subscribed to things, I don’t want to suscribe to avoid those ads. I would likely pay a one time fee, but not yet another subscription.

I know you have your reasonings, but I’ll give you my raw unfiltered train of thought of why I wouldn’t sign up in case it helps you in your business:

“It’s only 30 bucks a year” say 100 other apps. I get it, you’re trying to make money, but there are many other ways of doing this for free. You’re not offering that much product to me that’s worth a subscription. Netflix? I actively use it every night. Spotify? Several hours a day. Blocking ads? Maybe a one time fee.

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

#380

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

nidnogg wrote: post #357
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use the built-in browser password manager. It is safe and it only auto fills for the correct URL… exactly what you mentioned. You should be able to export from your current PW manager and import into the browser’s. Then turn on browser sync to make sure those passwords are available on all browser instances.

This is the last thing I expected to see on HN but after reading this I have to ask - is it ever remotely safe? Asking for a friend.

Absolutely. Much safer than a browser extension (source: I’m an ex-Mozilla engineer)
Post reply on HN