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

FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

ic3.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 238 posts

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#52

Post by thimabi »

Recently, my grandmother got herself scammed when trying to pay her bills, because she clicked a Google search ad for a fraudulent website posing as the local gas company. She lost some money and, of course, some of her personal data as well.

When situations like this happen, I mostly place the blame on ad companies. It’s their product, so it should be their responsibility to prevent abuses. But there is scant regulation, and the ad industry itself has little concern for privacy and data protection. Why would it waste money being proactive and effective against malicious ads?

It is nice to see the government recommending ad blockers. However, it bothers me that it is up to us, users and customers, to deal with the negligence of ad companies.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#54

Post by NegativeK »

hypeatei wrote: post #18

> Before clicking on an advertisement, check the URL to make sure the site is authentic Yeah, good luck doing that with all the various tracking links that mask the actual domain. Sometimes I try to click on links from legit account related emails that are blocked by UBO for being part of a tracker/ad network.

I hear this advice from other infosec people constantly, and it's starting to grate. In one breath we tell users "attackers are professionals who are doing this eight hours a day; they're probably going to trick you", and in another we're trying to get users -- who are busy doing their jobs -- to recognize the difference between an I or an l, or maybe go do a domain history lookup to see if businessandsons.com is some new knockoff of businessllc.com, or maybe figure out how to parse whatever the email reputation filter mangled the domain into.

I know perfect is the enemy of good and defense in depth and etc, etc, but this advice just seems crap.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#55

Post by tyleregeto »

Waterluvian wrote: post #11
giancarlostoro wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a confession to make. I don't really have ad-block. If your site is too ad-infested, I stop using it.

That feels like a pretty fair approach. If you don’t mind, I’m truly curious why you don’t Adblock? There’s no wrong answer here. ;)

I don't use one either. I actually think ads are a good system for supporting content, and I do want to support the creators of the content I consume.

I also have a low threshold for obnoxious sites, and will just bail and not return if I get annoyed.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#57

Post by gerdesj »

azinman2 wrote: post #40
hirvi74 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the GP you are asking, but I do not use an ad blocker because I predominantly use Safari as my browser. I would absolutely love one, but after Apple made all those API changes years back, I gave up trying to find one that works well and is privacy friendly.

The changes Apple made were to increase privacy. Content blockers that have access to the page have no network access. A separate process that does can only update the blocking rules. I quite like Ka-block

"The changes Apple made were to increase privacy"

Apple gobbles personal data too and processes it and sells it etc. They are simply rather better at looking ... friendly. They really are very good at that.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#58

Post by shkkmo »

mrinfinitiesx wrote: post #9
TechDebtDevin wrote: post #3

It's always an insane experience when you hop on someone's laptop/PC who has zero ad blocking installed. POV: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/iV3js9pd5IE

I just go to ublock origin on firefox and install it, they'll never ask about it; i'm just doing them a solid.

Given the numbers of times I've had to disable ad blocker to fix some janky page I have to use, I don't think installing an ad blocker without explaining or even mentioning it is a friendly act.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#59

Post by eh_why_not »

No-JS user here. A disturbing trend noticed in the past two months: can't login anymore to some financial/health services sites (bank/insurance/etc) without disabling all of NoScript - no amount of selective enabling of websites satisfies them, and those websites are using known infractors like Adobe.

In other words, there is code in the backend checking that all tracking/-ware has run on the browser, and refusing to let you login unless you let it all run, while none of it is necessary (as evidenced by older versions - and other sites - accepting only the top site being JS-enabled).

"We either track the living shit out of you, or you don't access the essential services you need, even though technically it is not needed."

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#60

Post by hollerith »

dopadelic wrote: post #56

Adblock would break most websites nowadays. It's commonplace to detect adblock and disable the website if adblock is detected.

Yeah, better not to install any kind of adblock even as a test. No one else does. You would be alone.

Also, people who use adblock are antisocial.

Also, I'd be mortified if I visited a web page, then the site told me that I cannot continue because I have adblock installed. I wouldn't want that to happen to me even once.

Post reply on HN