Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.security.misc > #1397 > unrolled thread

Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently

Back to article view | Back to comp.security.misc

Contents

  Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently "!!Credit" <payroll@qi3.com> - 2019-01-26 04:56 +0000
    Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-01-26 10:54 +0000
      Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently outlook shitemail <microsuck@msn.com> - 2019-01-26 13:14 +0000
      Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-02-01 00:25 +0000
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2019-02-01 00:37 +0000
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-02-01 00:58 +0000
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-02-01 11:48 +0000
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2019-02-01 14:10 +0000
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-02-01 00:54 +0000
          Pi-hole (Was: Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently) snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-02-01 11:48 +0000
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 07:59 +0100
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-02-01 11:48 +0000
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Doug McIntyre <merlyn@dork.geeks.org> - 2019-02-01 09:00 -0600
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-02-02 02:05 +0000
      Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently tom <tom@0.0.0.0> - 2019-02-17 11:42 -0800
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-02-17 20:24 +0000
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Pabst Blue Ribbon <pabst@blue.ribbon> - 2019-02-18 11:27 +0000
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-02-18 11:35 +0000
            Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-02-18 21:57 +0000
              Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-02-18 22:33 +0000
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-02-18 21:46 +0000
    Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> - 2019-01-26 17:58 +0100
      Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-01-26 23:15 +0000
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2019-01-26 23:22 +0000
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-01-27 11:09 +0000
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 08:01 +0100
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 07:56 +0100
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-01-28 11:26 +0000
            Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 15:11 +0100
      Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2019-01-27 19:58 +0100
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 08:03 +0100
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-01-30 22:01 +0000
            Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:34 -0800
    Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently suge0025@gmail.com - 2019-06-18 15:53 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#1397 — Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently

How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could block blocks?

<https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/>

Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad blockers.

If the overhaul goes ahead, Adblock Plus and similar plugins that rely on basic filtering will, with some tweaks, still be able to function to some degree, unlike more ambitious extensions, such as uBlock Origin, which will be harder hit. The drafted changes will limit the capabilities available to extension developers, ostensibly for the sake of speed and safety. Chromium forms the central core of Google Chrome, and, soon, Microsoft Edge.

In a note posted Tuesday to the Chromium bug tracker, Raymond Hill, the developer behind uBlock Origin and uMatrix, said the changes contemplated by the Manifest v3 proposal will ruin his ad and content blocking extensions, and take control of content away from users.

Content blockers may be used to hide or black-hole ads, but they have broader applications. They're predicated on the notion that users, rather than anyone else, should be able to control how their browser presents and interacts with remote resources.

Manifest v3 refers to the specification for browser extension manifest files, which enumerate the resources and capabilities available to browser extensions. Google's stated rationale for making the proposed changes, cutting off blocking plugins, is to improve security, privacy and performance, and supposedly to enhance user control.

"Users should have increased control over their extensions," the design document says. "A user should be able to determine what information is available to an extension, and be able to control that privilege."

But one way Google would like to achieve these goals involves replacing the webRequest API with a new one, declarativeNetRequest.

The webRequest API allows browser extensions, like uBlock Origin, to intercept network requests, so they can be blocked, modified, or redirected. This can cause delays in web page loading because Chrome has to wait for the extension. In the future, webRequest will only be able to read network requests, not modify them.

The declarativeNetRequest allows Chrome (rather than the extension itself) to decide how to handle network requests, thereby removing a possible source of bottlenecks and a potentially useful mechanism for changing browser behavior.

"The declarativeNetRequest API provides better privacy to users because extensions can't actually read the network requests made on the user's behalf," Google's API documentation explains.

Whose privacy exactly?

But "better privacy" here means privacy as defined by Google rather than privacy defined by a third-party extension developer. That's fine in scenarios where Google is more trustworthy than a third-party developer; but if Google and its ecosystem of publishers and advertisers are the problem, then users may prefer allowing a third-party to filter network requests, even to the extent such intervention interferes with webpage functionality.

"If this (quite limited) declarativeNetRequest API ends up being the only way content blockers can accomplish their duty, this essentially means that two content blockers I have maintained for years, uBlock Origin and uMatrix, can no longer exist," said Hill.

The proposed changes will diminish the effectiveness of content blocking and ad blocking extensions, though they won't entirely eliminate all ad blocking. The basic filtering mechanism supported by Adblock Plus should still be available to some degree. But uBlock Origin and uMatrix offer more extensive controls, without trying to placate publishers through ad whitelisting, and thus have a little more to lose.

Don't forget, Google and other internet advertising networks pay Adblock Plus to whitelist their online adverts. Meanwhile, Google has bunged its own basic ad blocking into its browser.

Several other developers commenting on the proposed change expressed dismay, with some speculating that Google is using privacy as a pretext for putting the interests of its ad business over those of browser users.

Hill, who said he's waiting for a response from the Google software engineer overseeing this issue, said in an email to The Register: "I understand the point of a declarativeNetRequest API, and I am not against such API. However I don't understand why the blocking ability of the webRequest API – which has existed for over seven years – would be removed (as the design document proposes). I don't see what is to be gained from doing this."

Hill observes that several other capabilities will no longer be available under the new API, including blocking media elements larger than a specified size, disable JavaScript execution by injecting Content-Security-Policy directives, and removing the outgoing Cookie headers.

And he argues that if these changes get implemented, Chromium will no longer serve users.

"Extensions act on behalf of users, they add capabilities to a 'user agent', and deprecating the blocking ability of the webRequest API will essentially decrease the level of user agency in Chromium, to the benefit of web sites which obviously would be happy to have the last word in what resources their pages can fetch/execute/render," he said.

"With such a limited declarativeNetRequest API and the deprecation of blocking ability of the webRequest API, I am skeptical 'user agent' will still be a proper category to classify Chromium."

Google, however, may yet be willing to address developers' concerns. "These changes are in the design process, as mentioned in the document and the Chromium bug," a Google spokesperson told The Register via email. "Things are subject to change and we will share updates as available." ®

Updated to add

Following a huge outcry from plugin developers and netizens, Google has reiterated that the proposed changes are not set in stone, and are subject to revision. While the internet goliath wants to rein in the level of access granted to Chrome browser extensions, it is prepared to work through the messy matter with third-party coders – who will have to rewrite parts of their software if this all goes ahead.

Also, we're happy to clarify that while Adblock Plus is affected by the draft changes, it will not be whacked quite as hard as other more featureful extensions, such as uBlock Origin.

Indeed, the proposed API appears to promote ABP's simple filtering mechanism, rather than support the advanced content blocking other extensions offer. The sticking point is whether or not the proposed limit of 30,000 filter rules will be enough for the likes of Adblock Plus. ADP developers say it won't: their filter list has more than 70,000 entries.

"Adblock Plus is, of course, affected by this proposed change, because it would replace the main API that we (and almost all other content blockers) use to block requests with something a bit watered down," a spokesperson said.

"Even though we don't know the exact plans for this proposed change, should it get implemented we'll make sure ABP is available for Chrome users."

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1398

On 2019-01-26, !!Credit <payroll@qi3.com> wrote:
> How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could block blocks?
>
><https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/>
>
> Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad blockers.

Get a PiHole.

https://pi-hole.net/

-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 26th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
                      ~ Stercus accidit ~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1399

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in
news:gb2sisF6n6dU1@mid.individual.net: 

> On 2019-01-26, !!Credit <payroll@qi3.com> wrote:
>> How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could
>> block blocks? 
>>
>><https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_cont
>>ent_block_change/> 
>>
>> Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium
>> browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad
>> blockers. 
> 
> Get a PiHole.
> 
> https://pi-hole.net/
> 

google won't be happy till they control your entire life. Google is a 
totalitarian nightmare.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1412

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2019-01-26, !!Credit <payroll@qi3.com> wrote:
> > How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could
> >block blocks?
> >
> ><https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/>
> >
> > Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium
> >browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad
> >blockers.
> 
> Get a PiHole.
> 
> <https://pi-hole.net/>
>

Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS?
<https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com> 
I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.  

-- 
^Ï^     My pet rock Gordon just is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1413

In comp.misc, Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Get a PiHole.
>> <https://pi-hole.net/>
> Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS?
> <https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com> 
> I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.  

Does your hosts file solution work for everything on your network?
Usually it is difficult to implement that sort of thing on phones and
tablets.

Of course, if you only have the one network connected device, adding in
a second just to do DNS is overkill.

Elijah
------
pi-hole also advertises it works for "smart" TVs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1415

On 2019-02-01, Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> In comp.misc, Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Get a PiHole.
>>> <https://pi-hole.net/>
>> Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS?
>> <https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com> 
>> I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.  
>
> Does your hosts file solution work for everything on your network?

Yes. Well, everything that uses local DNS. At present, my DHCP
server refers everything that asks for a DNS server to my local
server (dnsmasq) which has an 18,000 line file I made from as many
places as I could find blocklists, plus any I've come across since.
So, if you attach to my network (actually, networks, plural) you
get my DNS.

> Usually it is difficult to implement that sort of thing on phones and
> tablets.

Using the DNS approach, it doesn't matter what the client hardware
is.

> Of course, if you only have the one network connected device, adding in
> a second just to do DNS is overkill.

Indeed, but there are probably around ~20 hosts on my home networks,
and don't forget about the Internet-of-Chinese-tat stuff that's spying
on you, which can also be blocked this way.


-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 32nd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
                      ~ Stercus accidit ~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1417

Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:

> In comp.misc, Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Get a PiHole.
> >> <https://pi-hole.net/>
> > Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS?
> > <https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com> 
> > I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.
> 
> Does your hosts file solution work for everything on your network?
> Usually it is difficult to implement that sort of thing on phones and
> tablets.
> 
> Of course, if you only have the one network connected device, adding in
> a second just to do DNS is overkill.
> 
> Elijah
> ------
> pi-hole also advertises it works for "smart" TVs
>

Indeed.  I have it set up for each computer and it's true that 
this solution doesn't work for my Apple phones or tablets.

-- 
^Ï^     My pet rock Gordon just is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1420

On 2019-02-01, Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> Does your hosts file solution work for everything on your network?
> Usually it is difficult to implement that sort of thing on phones and
> tablets.

I don't have any smartphones or tablets.

> Of course, if you only have the one network connected device, adding in
> a second just to do DNS is overkill.

Indeed. (Actually I have a few Linux PCs. It's easy enough to implement the
hosts file solution on them but I can see the DNS black hole would be
convenient.)

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

  NSA sedition and treason        -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
  Don't talk to cops!             -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
  Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1414

On 2019-02-01, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2019-01-26, !!Credit <payroll@qi3.com> wrote:
>> > How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could
>> >block blocks?
>> >
>> ><https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/>
>> >
>> > Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium
>> >browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad
>> >blockers.
>> 
>> Get a PiHole.
>> 
>> <https://pi-hole.net/>
>>
>
> Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS?
><https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com> 
> I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.  

I'll let you know definitively soon, since my PiHole hardware arrived
a couple of days ago, and I already run a fairly large hosts file
(incorporating the MVPS one), presently [tap, tap, tap] some 18,000
hosts. The PiHole one is larger and it has the ability to blackhole
entire domains, without having to add individual machines, saving
pain like having to add;

0.0.0.0     a.spammingfucks.com
0.0.0.0     b.spammingfucks.com
0.0.0.0     c.spammingfucks.com
0.0.0.0     d.spammingfucks.com
0.0.0.0     e.spammingfucks.com

And so on. Also, the PiHoles lists are automatically updated, saving
me having to do it.


-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 32nd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
                      ~ Stercus accidit ~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1418 — Pi-hole (Was: Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently)

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2019-02-01, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> >
[...] [Subject amended]
> >> 
> >> Get a PiHole.
> >> 
> >> <https://pi-hole.net/>
> >>
> >
> > Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS?
> > <https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com> 
> > I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.
> >
>
> I'll let you know definitively soon, since my PiHole hardware arrived
> a couple of days ago, and I already run a fairly large hosts file
> (incorporating the MVPS one), presently [tap, tap, tap] some 18,000
> hosts. The PiHole one is larger and it has the ability to blackhole
> entire domains, without having to add individual machines, saving
> pain like having to add;
> 
> 0.0.0.0     a.spammingfucks.com
> 0.0.0.0     b.spammingfucks.com
> 0.0.0.0     c.spammingfucks.com
> 0.0.0.0     d.spammingfucks.com
> 0.0.0.0     e.spammingfucks.com
> 
> And so on. Also, the PiHoles lists are automatically updated, saving
> me having to do it.
>

I look forward to hearing about it, I could do with a 
nice little project.  I did think about doing something 
similar on my Synology router but eventually decided 
that discretion was the better part of valour when 
fiddling with something so central to the network that 
my better half relies on...

-- 
^Ï^     My pet rock Gordon just is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1416

On 01.02.2019 01:25, Sn!pe wrote:
>> Get a PiHole.
>>
>> <https://pi-hole.net/>
>>
> 
> Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS?
> <https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com>
> I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.

Much better, as it protects ALL devices in your network. Try editing the 
hosts file on an iPad ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1419

Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01.02.2019 01:25, Sn!pe wrote:
> >> Get a PiHole.
> >>
> >> <https://pi-hole.net/>
> >>
> > 
> > Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS?
> > <https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com>
> > I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.
> 
> Much better, as it protects ALL devices in your network. Try editing the
> hosts file on an iPad ;-)

Indeed!

-- 
^Ï^     My pet rock Gordon just is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1421

snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) writes:
>Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> Get a PiHole.
>> 
>> <https://pi-hole.net/>

>Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS?
><https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com> 
>I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.  

The pi-hole will work for every device in your network. Ie. your
smartphone, tablet, smarttv, etc. etc. whatever you have connected and
is setup to show ads.
The hosts file will be just the single machine you put it on.

While I don't have any numbers on if a huge hosts file slows down your
network activity, I'd expect that the lookup using a huge hosts file is
probably a bit slower than the DNS lookup purpose built algorithms. 
If that is noticible enough or not is questionable.



-- 
Doug McIntyre
doug@themcintyres.us

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1422

In comp.misc Doug McIntyre <merlyn@dork.geeks.org> wrote:
> snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) writes:
>>Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> Get a PiHole.
>>> 
>>> <https://pi-hole.net/>
> 
>>Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS?
>><https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com> 
>>I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.  
> 
> The pi-hole will work for every device in your network. Ie. your
> smartphone, tablet, smarttv, etc. etc. whatever you have connected and
> is setup to show ads.
> The hosts file will be just the single machine you put it on.

Yes, though on my network all the devices are PCs with easily
writable hosts files anyway. Plus the software running on all
of them is set up not to show ads. But I just don't like
networked devices running software that I can't control in the
first place. I pay for those bytes, so I'll decide how my money
is spent!

> While I don't have any numbers on if a huge hosts file slows down your
> network activity, I'd expect that the lookup using a huge hosts file is
> probably a bit slower than the DNS lookup purpose built algorithms. 
> If that is noticible enough or not is questionable.

Looking into it back in the FF 3.6 days, there was a rumour that a
huge hosts file caused Firefox to at least be slower to load because
it builds its own cache of the file at start-up. I decided that it
wasn't worth finding out given that script blockers and lightweight
web browsers got me where I want to be anyway.

I do have some entries on most computers blocking Facebook and
Twitter domains to stop them loading the stupid social media
icons on pages from their servers (which is a stupid way to
design a website anyway). Plus there are some on certain computers
put in when a particular service really annoys me for some reason,
it makes me feel better at least.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1434

On 26 Jan 2019 10:54:20 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> Get a PiHole.
No, stop using Chrome and any other google products and services

-- 
 _____________________________________ 
/ "Today, of course, it is considered \
| very poor taste to use the F-word   |
| except in major motion pictures."   |
|                                     |
\ -- Dave Barry, "$#$%#^%!^%&@%@!"    /
 ------------------------------------- 
\
 \
   /\   /\   
  //\\_//\\     ____
  \_     _/    /   /
   / * * \    /^^^]
   \_\O/_/    [   ]
    /   \_    [   /
    \     \_  /  /
     [ [ /  \/ _/
    _[ [ \  /_/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1435

On 2019-02-17, tom <tom@0.0.0.0> wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2019 10:54:20 GMT
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Get a PiHole.
> No, 

Sigh.

> stop using Chrome and any other google products and services

As well as ...


-- 
Today is Pungenday, the 48th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
'O you who turn the wheel and look to windward, Consider Phlebas,
            who was once handsome and tall as you.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1436

tom <tom@0.0.0.0> wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2019 10:54:20 GMT
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Get a PiHole.
> No, stop using Chrome and any other google products and services
> 

Well, actually, it's not entirely Google product. It's based on Chromium,
which is "an entirely free and open-source software project. The
Google-authored portion is released under the BSD license.[9] Other parts
are subject to a variety of licenses, including MIT, LGPL, Ms-PL, and an
MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license.[10]"

<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1437

On 2019-02-18, Pabst Blue Ribbon <pabst@blue.ribbon> wrote:
> tom <tom@0.0.0.0> wrote:
>> On 26 Jan 2019 10:54:20 GMT
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Get a PiHole.
>> No, stop using Chrome and any other google products and services
>> 
>
> Well, actually, it's not entirely Google product. It's based on Chromium,
> which is "an entirely free and open-source software project. The
> Google-authored portion is released under the BSD license.[9] Other parts
> are subject to a variety of licenses, including MIT, LGPL, Ms-PL, and an
> MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license.[10]"
>
><https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)>

And even if it were, the point is dumb, since Google isn't the only
company spying on you. Only four of the top blocked domains on my
PiHole (using the default blocklists) belong to Google. The other
six are other companies, so "stopping using Chrome" just gives
you a false sense of security.


-- 
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 49th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
'O you who turn the wheel and look to windward, Consider Phlebas,
            who was once handsome and tall as you.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1439

In comp.misc Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2019-02-18, Pabst Blue Ribbon <pabst@blue.ribbon> wrote:
>> tom <tom@0.0.0.0> wrote:
>>> On 26 Jan 2019 10:54:20 GMT
>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Get a PiHole.
>>> No, stop using Chrome and any other google products and services
>>
>> Well, actually, it's not entirely Google product. It's based on Chromium,
>> which is "an entirely free and open-source software project. The
>> Google-authored portion is released under the BSD license.[9] Other parts
>> are subject to a variety of licenses, including MIT, LGPL, Ms-PL, and an
>> MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license.[10]"
>>
>><https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)>
> 
> And even if it were, the point is dumb, since Google isn't the only
> company spying on you. Only four of the top blocked domains on my
> PiHole (using the default blocklists) belong to Google. The other
> six are other companies, so "stopping using Chrome" just gives
> you a false sense of security.

Seems wise enough if you then switch to a browser that really does
protect your privacy by design, giving up access to many popular
websites in the process.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1440

On 2019-02-18, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> In comp.misc Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2019-02-18, Pabst Blue Ribbon <pabst@blue.ribbon> wrote:
>>> tom <tom@0.0.0.0> wrote:
>>>> On 26 Jan 2019 10:54:20 GMT
>>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Get a PiHole.
>>>> No, stop using Chrome and any other google products and services
>>>
>>> Well, actually, it's not entirely Google product. It's based on Chromium,
>>> which is "an entirely free and open-source software project. The
>>> Google-authored portion is released under the BSD license.[9] Other parts
>>> are subject to a variety of licenses, including MIT, LGPL, Ms-PL, and an
>>> MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license.[10]"
>>>
>>><https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)>
>> 
>> And even if it were, the point is dumb, since Google isn't the only
>> company spying on you. Only four of the top blocked domains on my
>> PiHole (using the default blocklists) belong to Google. The other
>> six are other companies, so "stopping using Chrome" just gives
>> you a false sense of security.
>
> Seems wise enough if you then switch to a browser that really does
> protect your privacy by design, 

Precisely.


-- 
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 49th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.security.misc

csiph-web