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

I don't think you browse like I do

blog.microco.sm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: I don't think you browse like I do

#51

Post by Zirro »

fdb wrote: post #18

On Firefox, I use the RequestPolicy plugin: by default, it only allows requests to the current domain, so nytimes.com can't access connect.facebook.com. You can enable requests to go through, so that reddit.com can access redditstatic.com. I think it strikes a good balance between blocking everything (a la NoScript) and total openness. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy...

NoScript and RequestPolicy are best used together (as recommended by the creator of the latter) as they serve different purposes. This, plus a few other add-ons in these areas are my set-up and that works well.

Re: I don't think you browse like I do

#52

Post by mangodrunk »

buro9 wrote: post #48
Katelyn wrote: post #29

You are right. I don't browse like you do. That would take forever. I wonder: Are you afraid Google is sitting at home drooling over the fact that you bought your shoes from JcPenny? You’re not a name, you’re not a face, you’re a knode. a cookie. literally, a number in trillions of records. Secondly, you sit on the web writing openly about privacy issues, while overtly displaying your information on those "Identity t…

I replied to you on the blog but since you cross-posted: @Katelyn, I think you misunderstand the purpose. It’s not a paranoia thing to prevent companies recording information, instead it’s a preference for how I like to consume the web. The companies are free to record whatever they wish, they do so by my user of their service. But I’m free to choose how my client consumes their service. I just prefer web sites that…

You don't give any good reasons to do what you do. You just seem to be paranoid about something, I'm not sure of.

>I just prefer web sites that aren’t updating state based on me just reading things.

That seems odd. What do you care? Do you get frustrated if they incremented a counter to see how many people are currently on their site?

>I like to see opposing sides of the argument, so don’t like the idea of being bubbled by my own preferences.

That's shortsighted of you. The algorithm can detect that you like this and will show you a healthy does of opposing arguments.

>I feel a little freaked out when one cycling site I go on has adverts for the tyres I looked at 2 weeks ago on an entirely unconnected web site.

So you don't like to see relevant ads.

>Personalisation can get it wrong. In the same way that Amazon recommendations become tainted every December when you do the Christmas shop.

Sure, it can get it wrong, that's why it isn't as prevalent as you make it seem to be. Also, Amazon does their recommendations based on the latest things you shopped for. So when you start browsing other stuff, they'll show you related content.

>And personalisation can be extremely upsetting, such as a family member who still receives new born baby information months after a miscarriage.

Any one can get that wrong (and this isn't an extreme case). Their friend could congratulate them on the baby.

>It just comes back to how I use the web.

Like old media that isn't dynamic.

>I enjoy it more when it’s made up of many disconnected things giving a consistent experience to the user... me.

That doesn't make sense. It seems you don't like the Internet.

You make some good points on how they could improve these things, but not on them not being used.

Re: I don't think you browse like I do

#54

Post by [deleted] »

jerf wrote: post #35
fdb wrote: post #18

On Firefox, I use the RequestPolicy plugin: by default, it only allows requests to the current domain, so nytimes.com can't access connect.facebook.com. You can enable requests to go through, so that reddit.com can access redditstatic.com. I think it strikes a good balance between blocking everything (a la NoScript) and total openness. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy...

"blocking everything (a la NoScript)" This seems to be a really popular misconception (presumably the name), but NoScript works pretty much as you describe, too. You do not need a plugin to turn "everything" off, the browsers all ship with that capability and have for over 15 years.

[deleted]

Re: I don't think you browse like I do

#55

Post by frudi »

Well, I tried opening the link mentioned in the article, but Opera told me it's blocked by the Content Blocker. So I temporarily removed the /ads/ filter and tried to open the link again. Got forwarded to a different url and now Opera tells me this one is also blocked. So I disabled Opera's AdBlock extension and tried to open the link again. This time, Google tells me that Ads Preferences requires enabled cookies. So at that point I gave up and re-enabled AdBlock.

Re: I don't think you browse like I do

#56

Post by fdb »

Zirro wrote: post #51
fdb wrote: post #18

On Firefox, I use the RequestPolicy plugin: by default, it only allows requests to the current domain, so nytimes.com can't access connect.facebook.com. You can enable requests to go through, so that reddit.com can access redditstatic.com. I think it strikes a good balance between blocking everything (a la NoScript) and total openness. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy...

NoScript and RequestPolicy are best used together (as recommended by the creator of the latter) as they serve different purposes. This, plus a few other add-ons in these areas are my set-up and that works well.

You often have to trade off security for convenience – for me, NoScript is too inconvenient to be worth it, because so many sites silently break when JavaScript is not available.

I sometimes dream of a browser that would just fetch the page content and no extra other resources, showing it like Instapaper. The reality is more complex: images, css, CDN's, dynamic content, ...

RequestPolicy realizes the most important part of that dream: not telling Google, Facebook and a host of obscure tracking companies about every website I visit.

Re: I don't think you browse like I do

#57

Post by fingerprinter »

Check my name. I KNOW companies know more about this person than he thinks. How do I know this? Because, once, a long time ago, I wrote browser fingerprinting software for a security company that then spun it to be used for nefarious purposes (I say nefarious, but really, it is nothing more than what Google and FB do today). That was when I left.

The point being, it is really, REALLY, hard for someone to be invisible while browsing the modern internet. There are very few things you can do, but there are some things.

1. Install adblock 2. browse incognito 3. browse through a proxy (creates noise) and, the most important 4. use a plugin that randomizes queries to its components.

For #4, I don't know of any out there that do this effectively so I wrote my own.

The big take away from the article is that "nothing is stored locally"...well, most companies haven't been tracking that way for a long, long time.

Re: I don't think you browse like I do

#58

Post by buro9 »

fingerprinter wrote: post #57

Check my name. I KNOW companies know more about this person than he thinks. How do I know this? Because, once, a long time ago, I wrote browser fingerprinting software for a security company that then spun it to be used for nefarious purposes (I say nefarious, but really, it is nothing more than what Google and FB do today). That was when I left. The point being, it is really, REALLY, hard for someone to be invisible…

I agree. I wrote a security layer for a sports video site to detect shared passwords by creating fingerprints of clients using every signal I could get hold of.

However, the point of the article isn't "do not track", it's "consume without personalisation".

Re: I don't think you browse like I do

#59

Post by [deleted] »

buro9 wrote: post #58
fingerprinter wrote: post #57

Check my name. I KNOW companies know more about this person than he thinks. How do I know this? Because, once, a long time ago, I wrote browser fingerprinting software for a security company that then spun it to be used for nefarious purposes (I say nefarious, but really, it is nothing more than what Google and FB do today). That was when I left. The point being, it is really, REALLY, hard for someone to be invisible…

I agree. I wrote a security layer for a sports video site to detect shared passwords by creating fingerprints of clients using every signal I could get hold of. However, the point of the article isn't "do not track", it's "consume without personalisation".

[deleted]

Re: I don't think you browse like I do

#60

Post by fingerprinter »

buro9 wrote: post #58
fingerprinter wrote: post #57

Check my name. I KNOW companies know more about this person than he thinks. How do I know this? Because, once, a long time ago, I wrote browser fingerprinting software for a security company that then spun it to be used for nefarious purposes (I say nefarious, but really, it is nothing more than what Google and FB do today). That was when I left. The point being, it is really, REALLY, hard for someone to be invisible…

I agree. I wrote a security layer for a sports video site to detect shared passwords by creating fingerprints of clients using every signal I could get hold of. However, the point of the article isn't "do not track", it's "consume without personalisation".

True, though I would argue that the effort involved to 'consume without personalisation' has a low reward ratio given my first comment. Though, that is through the 'do not track' glasses, of course. If there is some other goal, it could have a higher reward ratio.
Post reply on HN