561–570 of 836 posts
Fwiw... I now run personal and professional browser profiles from two different jails / cgroups. It's a pain in the arse to set up, and I have to verify my config still works after every update, but I get a good feeling knowing my personal chocolate is not mixing in with my professional peanut butter. I set up the cgroups hack so I could route traffic from a dev profile into a VPS vpn, and may not be that useful for…
Yep, LinkedIn is cancer. 2020 - LinkedIn Sued For Spying on Clipboard Data After iOS 14 Exposes Its App: https://wccftech.com/linkedin-sued-for-spying-on-clipboard-d... 2013 - LinkedIn MITM attacks your iPhone to read your mail: https://www.troyhunt.com/disassembling-privacy-implications-... 2012/2016 - Data breach of 164.6 million accounts: https://haveibeenpwned.com/breach/LinkedIn According to haveibeenpwned.com,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the average person's response is "nah, that would take at least a couple of minutes of my time, As a data point I, a technical person who tweaks his computer a lot, was against adblocking for moral reasons (as a part of perceived social contract, where internet is free because of ads). Only later I changed mi mind on this because I became more privacy aware.
You mean the internet you pay to access and which was around before the ads were even on it? That internet? I'm not trying to be mean I'm just trying to historically parse your sentence/belief. Because for me this is a simplified analogy of what happened on the internet: a) we opened a club house called the internet in the early 1990s, just after the time of BBSs b) a few years later a new guy called commercial busin…
The headline seems pretty misleading. Here’s what seems to actually be going on: > Every time you open LinkedIn in a Chrome-based browser, LinkedIn’s JavaScript executes a silent scan of your installed browser extensions. The scan probes for thousands of specific extensions by ID, collects the results, encrypts them, and transmits them to LinkedIn’s servers. This does seem invasive. It also seems like what I’d expect…
> this is why I run ad blockers. It's pretty wild that we live in a world where the actual FBI has recommended we use ad blockers to protect ourselves, and if everyone actually listened, much of the Internet (and economy) as we know it would disappear. The FBI is like "you should protect yourself from the way that the third largest company in the world does business", and the average person's response is "nah, that w…
The real reason is that the average person neither suffers with ads nor finds ads invasive, despite what a vocal online minority would have you believe. We just ignore them and get on with life. ::shrug::
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean yeah, you pay for the internet. But many sites are free to use only due to ads. Such as news and magazine sites, many of which are actively dying due to a lack of revenue. I personally wish these sites could all switch to paid models, because I also don’t like ads. But absent that, I’d like to support the sites I use so that they don’t go out of business.
I have expensive online subscriptions to New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. Nevertheless they are FILLED with ads/popups/videos that run automatically/dark patterns. Just saying: there's no refuge.
The headline seems pretty misleading. Here’s what seems to actually be going on: > Every time you open LinkedIn in a Chrome-based browser, LinkedIn’s JavaScript executes a silent scan of your installed browser extensions. The scan probes for thousands of specific extensions by ID, collects the results, encrypts them, and transmits them to LinkedIn’s servers. This does seem invasive. It also seems like what I’d expect…
How is probing your browser for installed extensions not "scanning your computer"? Calling the title misleading because they didn't breach the browser sandbox is wrong when this is clearly a scenario most people didn't think was possible. Chrome added extensionId randomization with the change to V3, so it's clearly not an intended scenario. > vs. something inherently sinister (e.g. “they’re checking to see if you’re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if they do a better job at showing me an ad that might be relevant to me, how is that disgusting? if I have to see an ad at all I at least want them to give it their best shot
I cant believe that people still have the attitude that the trillions of dollars being invested in all this technology and tracking is just to give them a more relevant ad . Do people really not remember scandals like Cambridge Analytica, and realise that these ads combined with social media feeds can be used to literally control and manipulate peoples decisions and behavoir? Theres a reason Facebook and Youtube just…
Fwiw... I now run personal and professional browser profiles from two different jails / cgroups. It's a pain in the arse to set up, and I have to verify my config still works after every update, but I get a good feeling knowing my personal chocolate is not mixing in with my professional peanut butter. I set up the cgroups hack so I could route traffic from a dev profile into a VPS vpn, and may not be that useful for…
You may be interested in Qubes OS. My daily driver. Can't recommend it enough.