91–100 of 304 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ublock is more about ads, and this is tracking. While they usually come hand in hand, Facebook ads (eg: while on facebook) don't add additional tracking.
I specifically emphasize on the home page of the project [1]: "uBlock Origin (or uBlock₀) is not an ad blocker; it's a general-purpose blocker." It will report everything to the user -- including behind-the-scene network requests [2]. --- [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#philosophy [2] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Behind-the-scene-netw...
BTW, thanks for ublock.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why they offer to host frequently requested assets like JQuery Let's not forget the Google Fonts, which exist to "make web beautiful". How adorable and altruistic. Yay! /throws-confetti
Yes, let's not forget the fonts and js libraries served on cookie-less domains for speed. Surely, these are part of a plan to create a New World Order. https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq#Privacy
> Requests for CSS assets are cached for 1 day
Tracking font request "only" once per day is still spying.
Also, regarding your jump from Google's attack on our privacy to a larger to that "New World Order" reference is highly offensive. You're building a straw-man that was not stated, and perpetuating the belief that someone who complains about their privacy being attack must be some sort of "conspiracy theory nutter".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a valid objection. GA at this point is on most websites you visit. The data is forwarded to Google where it's processed and stored forever. GA is one of the biggest threats to privacy on the web, and any company claiming to care about your privacy should not be using it.
I agree with you that it's a valid objection. I disagree however, when you say " any company claiming to care about your privacy should not be using it." That's an easy accusation to throw around, but what is hard to is come up with a better alternative. What is your suggestion, that they should abandon all analytics, or that they should build their own, or do you not have one? Are you willing to acknowledge that GA…
Ideally, yes. Or at the very least don't use Google for it. Use something like Pwiki instead. Or perhaps try actually allowing your users to decide what if any information they feel comfortable sharing with you.
There are other non-profits like the Wikimedia Foundation and the Internet Archive whose websites still somehow manage to function despite not triggering any of the multitude of filter rules that plugins like uBlock ship with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a reddit post where OP works for a third party company that Apple send Siri voice to. People complained that users didn't read the EULA or whatever. Anyway OP said it was very specific too and crazy. So it doesn't sound like Apple being the champion of privacy.
This is the thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2wzmmr/everythin... Apple is using third parties to help make Siri better not to make money. And let's be clear we don't know the contract between Apple and these companies. Given Apple's track record it should have numerous privacy conditions.
Well Apple collaborate with the NSA, so that immediately disqualifies them from giving the slightest shit about privacy.
For those wondering what Firefox tracking protection is - https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection-fir... From my, very quick, tests it appears to work quite well as a poor man's adblocker as well. Nice!
Just last week I opted in to Firefox's multiprocess branch, and one of my biggest complaints is that this breaks pretty much every extension. I eagerly welcome this if it can replace Ghostery.
I've been running multiprocess Firefox as well, and every extension that I use regularly still works. The only exception was Vimperator, so I had to write my own extension to give Vim keybindings[0], since none of the others support e10s.
I'm curious which extensions have given you trouble, since Ghostery, NoScript, and uBlock all work for me (at least for the most part).
EDIT: I forgot that some extensions may need to be disabled/re-enabled the very first time after enabling e10s[1].
[deleted]
Advertising only makes content free monetarily; there's no money exchanged with the viewer. It instead costs you time, attention, memory. And sanity.
> $1000 per year seems like a reasonable charge for being able to search the web with the power of Google's search.
This shows the power of advertising in abusing our brain's ability to put realistic costs on our time and attention. Google has $50 billion in revenue minus profit, and there's a billion people in just the US and Europe, so more like $50 per year for everything Google does, not just search. If you are only using search and not Android or gmail or youtube or docs the cost would be far less.
Advertising is so insidious because its entire purpose is to prey on our foibles and weaknesses, and convincing us that our time is worth less... and that cigarettes are cool. Smoking pollutes your lungs with toxins, advertising pollutes your mind with jingles.
There are times and places where advertising is necessary, but it's never free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, let's not forget the fonts and js libraries served on cookie-less domains for speed. Surely, these are part of a plan to create a New World Order. https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq#Privacy
Cookies don't matter when browser fingerprinting accomplishes the same task. Read the page you linked to: "We do log records of the CSS and the font file requests, and access to this data is on a need-to-know basis and kept secure." Just like every other Google Privacy Policy, it's insultingly disingenuous, couched in terms of protecting your privacy while actually reserving for themselves the right to violate it by…
Your constant projecting of ulterior motives, absent any evidence, on a throwaway account, is the very definition of worthless, gratuitously negative content. The guy upthread is complaining that requests are cached for a day.
I'm sorry, would y'all prefer that they not be cached?
It's interesting to think of this as a nuclear option for Firefox. The only incentive they have not to turn it on immediately is that it could poison relationships with site owners such that they stop testing their sites on Firefox or outright block Firefox users, but if Firefox market share ever diminished to the point where site owners were already neglecting Firefox then I see no reason why Mozilla wouldn't damn t…
Mozilla could also implement shims, to make sites continue to work. So if a site breaks because it makes a call to a tracking library but that's now throwing an error, just provide that same tracking library's functions, but obviously they won't do anything. This would at least fix sites that aren't going out of their way to break things.
It's trivial to implement - just ship a list of hashes for every published js library on all the popular CDNs (+ anywhere else that comes to midn), and if a HTTP request returns a file that matches one of those hashes, put that URL on a hard cache list. (it would be worht experimenting if wildcarding all query strings is feasible)
The only UI change needed would be a menu option to flush the cache for any files associated with current page, so the user can simply reload any website that hasn't figured out how to version their js files.
This method wouldn't fix everything, of course, but it would cover a lot. Additionally, it's easy to use, no copyright is violated (the user still downloads any cached file at least once - firefox would only ship hashes). and it would be trivial to extend in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Create an iTunes Store, App Store, or iBooks Store account without a credit card or other payment method" https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204034
Which leads to: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203905 " If you're using the iTunes Store or App Store for the first time If you're using the store for the first time with an existing Apple ID, you must provide a payment method. After you create the account, you can change your payment information to None." I've always end up back in UX loops wanting my credit card since I seem to need a new version that is free bu…
Make an account - does not require payment option
Buy a FREE app in the store
None will be a payment option as one of the possible credit cards (as you dont have to pay for a free thing)