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

Do_not_track

donottrack.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 179 posts

Re: Do_not_track

#51

Post by amelius »

mmooss wrote: post #46
amelius wrote: post #40

You can also use network namespaces to simply block internet access for certain processes. It can even be finetuned with whitelists or blacklists.

Could you provide more details? Many applications use multiple processes, and use some intermittently. It seems like quite a bit of work to enumerate every process used and then to keep the white/blacklist updated as usage and software changes - every new application or command you use, every update, every OS change that affects networking or system calls etc ...

Yes, with security comes inconvenience, this is inevitable.

I'm not a daily user of network namespaces, and would probably write a script to do the configuration within a shell (it works a bit like containers). The configuration is inherited by child processes, so you only have to do it once. Basically whitelist the urls you typically use, and maybe let the script popup a dialog asking you to allow access when the firewall catches a domain that is not in the whitelist yet.

Re: Do_not_track

#52

Post by bstsb »

GuB-42 wrote: post #42
ximm wrote: post #10

Looks like a helpful honeypot! Any tool that will public announce support for this spec is a tool I know to avoid because it collects telemetry without explicit opt-in in the first place.

DO_NOT_TRACK support doesn't mean tracking is not an explicit opt-in. Example: the software crashes, and there is a crash handler that asks you if you want to send a crash dump. With DO_NOT_TRACK, the crash handler is disabled entirely, no question, no dump. If it gets some adoption, that's probably how it will work. Those who have an financial interest in using tracking (ex: ads) probably won't support such an optio…

i can't think of a single CLI that is possibly collecting analytics for ads

Re: Do_not_track

#53

Post by 0123456789ABCDE »

tosti wrote: post #13
drnick1 wrote: post #4

It's probably easier to run your own DNS and blacklist the offending domains. There are good blacklists with millions of telemetry domains, e.g. https://github.com/hagezi/dns-blocklists .

Better yet, don't allow such spyware crap on your computer.

pfft, just don't have a computer and you'll be good

Re: Do_not_track

#56

Post by hedayet »

I'd be interested in, 1. a SOME-TRUST model: a list of opt-outs for the known software that collect telemetry; so that I can just paste that into an env file and be done with it. 2. a ZERO-TRUST model [preferable]: where I control if an application can send any telemetry data; instead of depending on a flag that the distributor may or may not respect.

Re: Do_not_track

#59

Post by Bender »

Domain blocking is my preference but I would imagine that trackers probably also try to weed out data that contains racism, sexism, lewdness or some combination thereof. People can get very creative with ASCII art. AI surely does not accept such things.

Re: Do_not_track

#60

Post by charles_f »

It's interesting that we're so used to be tracked at this point that no one balks at being opted-in by default. A flag called DO_NOT_TRACK sounds like a good idea, but also suggests the default is CONSENT_TO_TRACK=1, and I find that creepy.
Post reply on HN