4 ms·

> not an easy fix All of this is an easy fix: disable css. In the same way that "I don't want to be tracked by javascript" can easily be resolved by disabling

> not an easy fix All of this is an easy fix: disable css. In the same way that "I don't want to be tracked by javascript" can easily be resolved by disabling javascript. I'm not seriously suggesting everyone does that, but anyone who is so paranoid that they don't want a site knowing that they're reading its content might want to consider it.

kodablah 9y ago
While we, as devs, may get tired of the constant beat-down between site flexibility and privacy, many of our users are unaware. They will go blindly towards flexibility and we have a duty to find as much compromise as possible between those two values lest we just say "it's an easy fix, just turn off your computer". There has to be a middle ground between extremely paranoid turn everything off and extremely liberal with my anonymity (and on the internet, it's not governments who are going to help find it).
- oneeyedpigeon 9y ago
  I guess my point is "how much anonymity is it reasonable to expect?" Should I have a problem with the fact that nigh-on every URL in the world will leave behind a little footprint when I request it? I don't see an enormous problem with a website anonymously recording the fact that I've clicked a link. ("anonymously" assuming I'm blocking their cookies, which I would if I were that paranoid)
  - philliphaydon 9y ago
    I don’t mind sites tracking to know what products sell and what doesn’t, what browsers people use or how Long I spend on the site etc. What I hate, is the fact that I go to agoda, I search for hotels in jiufen in taiwan, I look at only 2, I book one of the 2, I close it. Open up Facebook on my phone seconds later and have adverts saying: hey how about these 2 hotels in jiufen. That shit annoys me. Stop following me and tracking what I’m doing and sharing it with all these companies. It makes me want to not use the internet...
  - fixermark 9y ago
    > ("anonymously" assuming I'm blocking their cookies, which I would if I were that paranoid) Note that cookies are mostly a convenience vis-a-vis tracking. For user tracking, there's nothing really stopping the server from vending you a version of their site with custom CSS that loads images with a fingerprint in the URL, which would still work with cookies disabled. That'll get you coherent signal on a session (gluing different sessions together would be a bit more challenging, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were possible).
  - goialoq 9y ago
    a footprint is not a fingerprint. This whole thread is about non-anonymous tracking.
keypress 9y ago
Happily used to (5 years ago) surf the web with no JS and no CSS, or rather applying my own style-sheet for 90% of my web viewing. I'd fall back to Chrome when absolutely necessary. It was fast and comfortable, it just relies on well structured accessible content.
- vog 9y ago
  There's also a nice Open Source project which implements that using a proxy: https://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/miniwebproxy https://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/miniwebproxy
- dahart 9y ago
  > it just relies on well structured accessible content. Honest question: how much of this is left? What popular sites are still accessible this way? HN might be the only site I visit frequently where browsing with no js/css has any hope of working.
  - rplnt 9y ago
    No js is suprisingly fine. Google search works, gmail works, maps don't :)
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    Check surfraw (by Assange), you can actually access a surprising amount of resources using sr and lynx from a terminal. Text only, but still makes internet pretty useful.
    - MamboJ 9y ago
      Are you aware of any piece, writeup review or anything on Assange’s programming skills?
  - _jal 9y ago
    Try it and see. I block a ton by default[1]; most sites are just fine without it. I get that some people have low tolerances for things not being perfect. CNN stories without JS usually have a pile of empty images at the top, for instance. But that is probably fixable; I just haven't bothered to figure out which bit of JS to allow for that. Usability depends on your tolerance for imperfections vs. your tolerance for being observed. [1] Current setup uses JS Blocker 5, uBlock, an aggressive cookie manager and my home proxy, which does a ton of things, many of which I don't even remember at this point.
Tepix 9y ago
Completely disabling CSS will make a lot of sites inaccessible. Partly disabling it (for example the #after part) would be interesting...
- jdironman 9y ago
  Wonder how complicated a CSS Parser / White-listing extension would be?
  - tatersolid 9y ago
    Complicated enough to be a security nightmare
zerokernel 9y ago
That's pretty much the "reader mode" available in some browsers, no?

kodablah 9y ago

While we, as devs, may get tired of the constant beat-down between site flexibility and privacy, many of our users are unaware. They will go blindly towards flexibility and we have a duty to find as much compromise as possible between those two values lest we just say "it's an easy fix, just turn off your computer". There has to be a middle ground between extremely paranoid turn everything off and extremely liberal with my anonymity (and on the internet, it's not governments who are going to help find it).

oneeyedpigeon 9y ago
I guess my point is "how much anonymity is it reasonable to expect?" Should I have a problem with the fact that nigh-on every URL in the world will leave behind a little footprint when I request it? I don't see an enormous problem with a website anonymously recording the fact that I've clicked a link. ("anonymously" assuming I'm blocking their cookies, which I would if I were that paranoid)
- philliphaydon 9y ago
  I don’t mind sites tracking to know what products sell and what doesn’t, what browsers people use or how Long I spend on the site etc. What I hate, is the fact that I go to agoda, I search for hotels in jiufen in taiwan, I look at only 2, I book one of the 2, I close it. Open up Facebook on my phone seconds later and have adverts saying: hey how about these 2 hotels in jiufen. That shit annoys me. Stop following me and tracking what I’m doing and sharing it with all these companies. It makes me want to not use the internet...
- fixermark 9y ago
  > ("anonymously" assuming I'm blocking their cookies, which I would if I were that paranoid) Note that cookies are mostly a convenience vis-a-vis tracking. For user tracking, there's nothing really stopping the server from vending you a version of their site with custom CSS that loads images with a fingerprint in the URL, which would still work with cookies disabled. That'll get you coherent signal on a session (gluing different sessions together would be a bit more challenging, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were possible).
- goialoq 9y ago
  a footprint is not a fingerprint. This whole thread is about non-anonymous tracking.

keypress 9y ago

Happily used to (5 years ago) surf the web with no JS and no CSS, or rather applying my own style-sheet for 90% of my web viewing. I'd fall back to Chrome when absolutely necessary. It was fast and comfortable, it just relies on well structured accessible content.

vog 9y ago
There's also a nice Open Source project which implements that using a proxy: https://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/miniwebproxy https://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/miniwebproxy
dahart 9y ago
> it just relies on well structured accessible content. Honest question: how much of this is left? What popular sites are still accessible this way? HN might be the only site I visit frequently where browsing with no js/css has any hope of working.
- rplnt 9y ago
  No js is suprisingly fine. Google search works, gmail works, maps don't :)
- ekianjo 9y ago
  Check surfraw (by Assange), you can actually access a surprising amount of resources using sr and lynx from a terminal. Text only, but still makes internet pretty useful.
  - MamboJ 9y ago
    Are you aware of any piece, writeup review or anything on Assange’s programming skills?
- _jal 9y ago
  Try it and see. I block a ton by default[1]; most sites are just fine without it. I get that some people have low tolerances for things not being perfect. CNN stories without JS usually have a pile of empty images at the top, for instance. But that is probably fixable; I just haven't bothered to figure out which bit of JS to allow for that. Usability depends on your tolerance for imperfections vs. your tolerance for being observed. [1] Current setup uses JS Blocker 5, uBlock, an aggressive cookie manager and my home proxy, which does a ton of things, many of which I don't even remember at this point.

Tepix 9y ago

Completely disabling CSS will make a lot of sites inaccessible. Partly disabling it (for example the #after part) would be interesting...

jdironman 9y ago
Wonder how complicated a CSS Parser / White-listing extension would be?
- tatersolid 9y ago
  Complicated enough to be a security nightmare

zerokernel 9y ago

That's pretty much the "reader mode" available in some browsers, no?