140
Google Web Environment Integrity draft draws developer rage
(www.theregister.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
140 points (96.7% liked)
News
23287 readers
3565 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
stop using Chrome immediately, and use a privacy respecting browser. that's the only way google keeps getting away with this horse shit.
@aeternum there are no good browsers. :-(
Firefox/librewolf is a good choice. Very similar speeds to Chrome.
@Xylight Firefox v2.0.20 in 2008 was the last "good" version. Since then it has been awesome bar, pocket, forced VPN ads, ftp support, PAC support, XUL bombing, and phone calls home. I use Librewolf, and while it is tolerable it is still tired to a garbage browser. :-(
I have never seen those services shoved down my throat. The only issue I have is the opt out telemetry, but even then it's anonymous.
"Phone calls home" ? O_o
@Bogasse
“Phone calls home”
In previous versions you could search your about:config on the "value" field, this is no longer possible. Searching for https:// and http:// would give you a list of numerous URLs, most of which are under Mozilla's own domains. Some might argue that things like updates are necessary to ensure a secure browser. Others might argue that they have run very outdated browsers without problems for years, and that combined with forced updates and the Maintenance Service, the log files generated produce a not-insignificant amount of information about users.
Suggesting using an decades old and known exploitable browser because "well I never got hacked" is like saying vaccines are unnecessary because "well I never got sick"
@bamboo
Feel free to point out where anyone suggested that anyone else should use "an decades old and known exploitable browser".
Awesomebar was the reason I left Firefox in the first place. Chrome's location bar is almost as bad now - or maybe just as bad? It's been a while.
And tabs replaced with fugly buttons.
Dude. I'm using Firefox on Windows, Linux and MacOS, it is the best browser out there. Fast as Chromium and extremely stable.
Firefox is out last line of defense (Notwithstanding Safari as it only runs on Apple devices).
Firefox on Android (with full support for ublock Origin) is a great addition to your list too.
Safari already implemented attestation
there are some that are less shit than others. Chrome is the worst of the worst
@aeternum I dunno... Dillo is pretty bad!
I just had a look. Chrome is still worse.
@aeternum @jmhorner
Firefox with uBlock Origin extension is good, as is Ghostery.
don't use ghostery. they have ties to ad companies.
@aeternum @jmhorner
Ghostery went open source in 2018 when it posted its code on GitHub. It is not, and never has been, in league with ad companies.
https://www.wired.com/story/ghostery-open-source-new-business-model/
you sure about that? yes, i realise it is 10 years old.
@aeternum @jmhorner
Yes I'm sure because the article I posted is from 2018 and yours is from 2013.
you said, and i quote "ghostery has never been in league with ad comanies" I proved you wrong.
you said, and i quote "ghostery has never been in league with ad comanies" I proved you wrong.
@girlfreddy @aeternum
I tried to open the wired link and got a 404, then tried again and got a 504, then tried again and got a 503.
I then opened the lifehacker link, and it opened fine. The content of that link gives me the impression Ghostery may have had ties to ad companies. At the bottom of the article they link to Mashable as their source here:
https://mashable.com/2013/06/17/ad-blocker-helps-ad-industry/
At the top of that article it says the source is MIT Technology Review which just links to a description of the "author" here:
https://mashable.com/author/technologyreview
A StartPage search turned up
https://www.technologyreview.com/
And another StartPage search turned up:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/06/17/177933/a-popular-ad-blocker-also-helps-the-ad-industry/
Which was apparently written by Tom Simonite who is described as "MIT Technology Review’s San Francisco bureau chief" (whatever that means) here:
https://www.technologyreview.com/author/tom-simonite/
Since the Wired article seems to be the only one I can't open, I guess it is unable to defend itself beyond the title of the article, which says that (1) Ghostery is now open source and (2) Ghostery has a new business model. Based on what I can see, it would appear to me as though Ghostery was actually owned/managed by Evidon. My interpretation of that would have to be that their OLD business model included selling information to advertisers. I tried to go to evidon.com but it was blocked by my intentional DNS poisoning (a sign that it is a scummy domain). After temporarily changing my DNS resolver to one of the servers hosted by
https://dns.watch/
I was able to resolve evidon.com, but it just redirected me to
https://www.crownpeak.com/products/privacy-and-consent-management/
Which is clearly a business that is designed to help businesses monetize web services while staying just barely legal and maximize the amount of data a marketer can pull from people without getting in shit for not actually getting consent from them.
So, when you say
"It is not, and never has been, in league with ad companies."
Do you mean I have imagined all of the above? Because it sounds pretty shady to me that a company affiliated with Evidon and Crownpeak would be making a product line like the ones at Ghostery.
@jmhorner @aeternum
Gizmodo has an article on Ghostery's move to open source that also references (and links) the Wired article. https://gizmodo.com/ad-blocker-ghostery-is-going-open-source-to-win-back-so-1823612514
@girlfreddy @aeternum
Sigh... now that I am home I am able to open the Wired article. The second link is to a vice.com article which says:
"Ghostery 6.0 is a from-the-ground-up re-imagining of how to design a privacy-enhancing browser extension so that its features are more easily accessible to a mainstream audience."
In other words, this is NOT their old version, and it says nothing about any previous versions, ownership, management, or financing of the product. The fourth link in the article is to another Wired article:
https://www.wired.com/2016/03/heres-how-that-adblocker-youre-using-makes-money/
Which states:
"Ghostery, another popular ad blocker, operates under a different model. As a user, you don't see ads and aren't tracked by pesky data trackers. The company, however, makes money by collecting anonymized data on what those trackers pick up. It repackages that data and resells it to publishers, websites, and other companies it says can use the information to help improve the speed, privacy, and performance of their sites."
Followed by a footnote that says:
"UPDATE 3:47 PM ET 03/02/16: This story has been updated to accurately reflect that Ghostery does not collect the same data that third-party trackers collect, but rather collects and sells data about the trackers themselves."
I have a hard time not seeing this as:
"Ghostery was getting a shitty reputation because people did not understand that they were selling information about stooges to other stooges. Their solution was to make a dramatic shift in their business model in hopes that they could win back privacy points."
When it comes to digital privacy, I am not big on second chances. If Meta says they are going to opensource some portion of their crap it doesn't win them any points with me and I won't be trusting them with any digital data. Whatever anyone else's opinion may be, there is plenty there to keep me from trusting Ghostery, opensource or not.
I'm also not a fan of Wikipedia [not a primary source] but even they have this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostery#Criticism
Thanks, I'll pass on the sketchy ad blocker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBRpW5sEvJk
Yup. They have done their dash with a lot of users, and can't be trusted anymore, no matter what they're doing now.