info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Alert: Using a web ad blocker may identify you – to advertisers
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Eric Stevens
Apr 14, 2017, 5:09:33 PM4/14/17
to
Read the article and try the test.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/14/ad_blockers_identify_you_to_advertisers/
or http://tinyurl.com/lv23hod
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/14/ad_blockers_identify_you_to_advertisers/
or http://tinyurl.com/lv23hod
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
nospam
Apr 14, 2017, 5:52:27 PM4/14/17
to
In article <sge2fcphqrfigbmeh...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
completely bogus article written by an ignorant idiot.
even the best ad blocker doesn't stop browser fingerprinting or using
cookies (that's not what it's for, duh) and logging out of a website
doesn't stop tracking either.
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> Read the article and try the test.
>
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/14/ad_blockers_identify_you_to_advertise
> rs/
as usual for the register, another misleading headline with a
> Read the article and try the test.
>
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/14/ad_blockers_identify_you_to_advertise
> rs/
completely bogus article written by an ignorant idiot.
even the best ad blocker doesn't stop browser fingerprinting or using
cookies (that's not what it's for, duh) and logging out of a website
doesn't stop tracking either.
Mayayana
Apr 14, 2017, 6:55:21 PM4/14/17
to
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote
|
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/14/ad_blockers_identify_you_to_advertisers/
| or http://tinyurl.com/lv23hod
"That level of precise identification is possible
through no more than a third-party cookie"
The's no reason to ever allow 3rd-party cookies
and there's no reason to keep cookies after closing
the browser. (I usually block them completely.)
Unique IDs are being used more. Here's another
test for uniqueness.
https://panopticlick.eff.org/
But the test at The Register doesn't even work
without ascript and if you try Panopticlick without
script you'll see that it can't read most values. With
script enabled you're a sitting duck in more ways
than one. With it disabled, most of what the article
talks about tracking is not possible to track.
There's also the option to change your userAgent
and to use privacy extensions like Secret Agent.
And you can block redirects. (I do.)
So there's a lot you can do. Someone could still ID
you by recording your IP, location, the fact you
have script disabled, etc. But that takes work that's
difficult for software to do, while cookies are like a
tracking collar.
Also, The Register article is misleading. It's not about
ad blockers. It's about extensions. They just wrote the
headline to be catchy.
|
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/14/ad_blockers_identify_you_to_advertisers/
| or http://tinyurl.com/lv23hod
through no more than a third-party cookie"
The's no reason to ever allow 3rd-party cookies
and there's no reason to keep cookies after closing
the browser. (I usually block them completely.)
Unique IDs are being used more. Here's another
test for uniqueness.
https://panopticlick.eff.org/
But the test at The Register doesn't even work
without ascript and if you try Panopticlick without
script you'll see that it can't read most values. With
script enabled you're a sitting duck in more ways
than one. With it disabled, most of what the article
talks about tracking is not possible to track.
There's also the option to change your userAgent
and to use privacy extensions like Secret Agent.
And you can block redirects. (I do.)
So there's a lot you can do. Someone could still ID
you by recording your IP, location, the fact you
have script disabled, etc. But that takes work that's
difficult for software to do, while cookies are like a
tracking collar.
Also, The Register article is misleading. It's not about
ad blockers. It's about extensions. They just wrote the
headline to be catchy.
nospam
Apr 14, 2017, 7:06:37 PM4/14/17
to
In article <ocrjqr$9p6$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
> The's no reason to ever allow 3rd-party cookies
you'll be happy to know that safari defaults to blocking 3rd party
cookies.
> and there's no reason to keep cookies after closing
> the browser.
many times there is.
> (I usually block them completely.)
then you greatly limit what can be done.
> Unique IDs are being used more. Here's another
> test for uniqueness.
>
> https://panopticlick.eff.org/
>
> But the test at The Register doesn't even work
> without ascript and if you try Panopticlick without
> script you'll see that it can't read most values. With
> script enabled you're a sitting duck in more ways
> than one. With it disabled, most of what the article
> talks about tracking is not possible to track.
with javascript disabled, most sites won't work at all.
> There's also the option to change your userAgent
> and to use privacy extensions like Secret Agent.
> And you can block redirects. (I do.)
that won't make much difference.
> So there's a lot you can do. Someone could still ID
> you by recording your IP, location, the fact you
> have script disabled, etc. But that takes work that's
> difficult for software to do, while cookies are like a
> tracking collar.
actually, it's very easy to do.
> Also, The Register article is misleading. It's not about
> ad blockers. It's about extensions. They just wrote the
> headline to be catchy.
as with most articles from the register, it's completely bogus.
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "That level of precise identification is possible
> through no more than a third-party cookie"
not just 3rd party cookies.
> "That level of precise identification is possible
> through no more than a third-party cookie"
> The's no reason to ever allow 3rd-party cookies
cookies.
> and there's no reason to keep cookies after closing
> the browser.
> (I usually block them completely.)
> Unique IDs are being used more. Here's another
> test for uniqueness.
>
> https://panopticlick.eff.org/
>
> But the test at The Register doesn't even work
> without ascript and if you try Panopticlick without
> script you'll see that it can't read most values. With
> script enabled you're a sitting duck in more ways
> than one. With it disabled, most of what the article
> talks about tracking is not possible to track.
> There's also the option to change your userAgent
> and to use privacy extensions like Secret Agent.
> And you can block redirects. (I do.)
> So there's a lot you can do. Someone could still ID
> you by recording your IP, location, the fact you
> have script disabled, etc. But that takes work that's
> difficult for software to do, while cookies are like a
> tracking collar.
> Also, The Register article is misleading. It's not about
> ad blockers. It's about extensions. They just wrote the
> headline to be catchy.
Eric Stevens
Apr 14, 2017, 8:18:51 PM4/14/17
to
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 17:52:24 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
I also rum Malware Bytes and SuperAntiSpyware. I don't know how much
they help.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
they help.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
nospam
Apr 14, 2017, 8:39:57 PM4/14/17
to
In article <qkp2fcdf9lhid02hv...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >as usual for the register, another misleading headline with a
> >completely bogus article written by an ignorant idiot.
> >
> >even the best ad blocker doesn't stop browser fingerprinting or using
> >cookies (that's not what it's for, duh) and logging out of a website
> >doesn't stop tracking either.
>
> I also rum Malware Bytes and SuperAntiSpyware. I don't know how much
> they help.
the rum is the key.
> >as usual for the register, another misleading headline with a
> >completely bogus article written by an ignorant idiot.
> >
> >even the best ad blocker doesn't stop browser fingerprinting or using
> >cookies (that's not what it's for, duh) and logging out of a website
> >doesn't stop tracking either.
>
> I also rum Malware Bytes and SuperAntiSpyware. I don't know how much
> they help.
RichA
Apr 14, 2017, 9:27:08 PM4/14/17
to
Ron C
Apr 14, 2017, 11:17:09 PM4/14/17
to
cookies seemed like the way to go.
==
L...
RC
--
0 new messages