30 ms·

Google Container for Firefox – Prevent Google from tracking you around the web

959 points by LukeWalsh 8y ago

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
I definitely want this, but the only reason I use Facebook Container is because it's an official Mozilla addon. I encouraged Mozilla to pursue a Google version, but it seems like they've declined for now, and were just looking to capitalize on the press wave about Facebook.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > I encouraged Mozilla to pursue a Google version, but it seems like they've declined for now Doesn't Mozilla get a significant fraction of its revenue from their search deal with Google?
  - kenhwang 8y ago
    $539m of their $562m revenue last year came from "royalty deals" like Google. They don't break out specifics, but I'd guess Google is a significant contributor.
    - Cyphase 8y ago
      That's millions, not thousands, in case someone didn't know.
    - jammygit 8y ago
      Crazy how high a percent that is...
- sirn 8y ago
  I'm curious, why not just use Firefox Multi-Account Container[1] and setup Facebook and Google to open in its own container[3]? The way I see Facebook Container (as an outside who have been using Multi-Account Container for a while) is that it tried to ride on the Delete Facebook wave few months ago to make people aware of Multi-Account Container functionality, so these Google Container/Reddit Container/etc. always seems weird to me. [1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account... [2]: https://imgur.com/KZuJmgq https://imgur.com/KZuJmgq
  - dralley 8y ago
    Facebook container has tha two main benefits over multi-account containers, which is that it requires zero setup, and that when you click a link on Facebook it drops out of the container.
    - StreakyCobra 8y ago
      As a workaround for your second point, it is possible to right-click a link and use "Open Link in New Container Tab » No Container". Still a workaround though.
tedunangst 8y ago
I'm not sure an addon per tracker is web scale.
- llukas 8y ago
  Regular trackers can be blocked outright. One may need to use fb and google from time to time.
- mastazi 8y ago
  Firefox already has a built-in option to block all tracking[1], the reason why this add-on exists is that it lets you keep Google into a separated Firefox Container[2] [1] see here https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection?redirectlocale=en-US&redirectslug=tracking-protection-pbm https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection?red... or, alternatively, you can use Privacy Badger or one of the many ad-blockers that let you enable tracking-related lists, such as uBlock Origin. [2] see here: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...
jmathai 8y ago
Isn't it possible to have a "per TLD" container addon? I'm fine to be logged into Google and even have Google collect information when I'm using any of their services (same for Facebook). What I'm really after is a way to sandbox every site to only have information I explicitly grant it while using their service.
- sirn 8y ago
  I believe First Party Isolation is what you're looking for. To enable, change `privacy.firstparty.isolate` to `true`. See also previous discussion[1] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17944991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17944991
  - sleavey 8y ago
    I've been using first party isolation ever since it was ported from Tor. It's excellent, but be aware that it breaks stuff, usually JavaScript, on about 5% of websites (anecdata). I find this to be well worth it, especially to find out which sites do the worst tracking. I have a separate Firefox profile I use for rare occasions when I need to allow third party tracking in order to do something.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Google has... literally hundreds of domains. Just assuming *.google.com would miss things like googleusercontent.com or googleapis.com or doubleclick.net. The Facebook container basically grabs "all domains by Facebook" and sandboxes them together (so they can still interoperate amongst themselves), while isolating it off from other sites you visit. Sure, you could do a lot of this yourself with different browsers/browser profiles/containers, but it'd be far better to have someone provide that list as a prebuilt addon.
  - baroffoos 8y ago
    I really hate websites that do this because I have to go and whitelist the hundreds of domains that important resources are coming from.
zubair_io 8y ago
Disconnect can block Facebook, Google and twitter
und3fined 8y ago
just facebook.com for Facebook production With google, i use "Always Open in this Container" each google service, this better for Container google service
kerng 8y ago
This is cool, will install. Maybe Firefox embraces this idea and adopts the fork.
- PinkMilkshake 8y ago
  Unfortunately, that would be biting the hand that feeds.
  - xfitm3 8y ago
    Do you think the anti-tracking measures (specifically blocking third party cookies by default) in Firefox 65 is bad for Google?
    - PinkMilkshake 8y ago
      Possibly, but that's an untargeted and justifiable privacy feature in a browser who's primary shtick is being privacy focused. I think if Mozilla included code that specifically targets Google, they would be crossing a line.
- LukeWalsh 8y ago
  That would certainly make it easier to trust this extension. I'm curious why Mozilla would ship a Facebook container but not a Google container.
  - Holybeds 8y ago
    Because Google pays a lot of money to Mozilla?
    - LukeWalsh 8y ago
      Then an interesting question is IF the Facebook container stemmed from principles 4 & 5 from the Mozilla Manifesto applied to the dominant social utility; is there a reason other than money that the same principles would not lead to a decision to build an add-on that gives people an option to contain Google? It's certainly not a technical limitation. It seems natural to posit that money is the issue but is it so easy to believe that a foundation most of us trust would compromise its core values? As mentioned elsewhere hacky add-ons cannot be the end solution, and will not be widely adopted unless incorporated as defaults.
stdplaceholder 8y ago
In order to use this supposed privacy-enhancing feature, you must allow the authors of this extension total control over everything you do on the web. Add-ons are automatically updated in Firefox by default, so you can review this code now and it will change later. This seems like a poor trade.
- hyperpallium 8y ago
  Email me to subscribe to my anti-spam service! Enter your credit card details to check if they've been stolen!
  - black-tea 8y ago
    There is a site that is very popular here that does just that (haveibeenpwned).
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      No it doesn't, it does not ask you to provide your own password.
      - eecc 8y ago
        Or CC details... ;)
      - fwn 8y ago
        This is wrong, since grandparent did not ask for passwords. Quote: > Email me to subscribe to my anti-spam service! This is precisely what haveibeenpwned asks for, as your parent wrote.
      - DavideNL 8y ago
        It does: https://haveibeenpwned.com/Passwords https://haveibeenpwned.com/Passwords
      - auslander 8y ago
        Troy Hunt launched another one, which does ask for password. And sells you 1Password after check :)
AlexCoventry 8y ago
How does this compare to extensions like uBlock Origin and Ghostery?
- 8bitsrule 8y ago
  Two different schemes. uBlock loads privately-constructed filtersets which are used to decide what net contents to block. (That blockage can be customized per-site in advanced mode.) Each FF container keeps content associated with one or multiple sites 'isolated' (in theory) so they can't be 'seen' by sites in other containers ... all in the browser.
cog74657 8y ago
not sure why you'd use this over the Multi-Account Containers addon by Mozilla. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...
- ww520 8y ago
  It serves different purpose. These Facebook/Google containers are for automatic isolation. The Multi-Account Containers is for creating and managing containers.
- LukeWalsh 8y ago
  The Firefox Multi-Account Containers is a more general extension that allows you to create containers and determine which sites open in each container. This extension can be customized to suit your needs for multiple sites and multiple logins but takes more time to set up than Google Container.
  - toastal 8y ago
    Exactly. It's easy to tell a privacy-unsavvy person to install this and the Facebook-only container rather than explaining how to containerize and set up all the specific URLs and what the broader concept means. The multi-account container is pretty cumbersome to set up despite being easy.
    - inferiorhuman 8y ago
      The facebook-only container is really slick. If you go to facebook.com or instagram.com it'll replace the current tab with a FB container automatically.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  I think this one also makes sure that links you click inside the Google container get opened outside of it?
- 8bitsrule 8y ago
beefhash 8y ago
This is probably a good idea in theory. In practice, it might lower your internal ReCAPTCHA score and end up prompting you more actual CAPTCHAs, possibly up to unsolvable[1] ones. [1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US9407661 https://patents.google.com/patent/US9407661
- xfs 8y ago
  ... a tarpit nominally designed for bot detection and anti-spam. I'm sure the patent wasn't created with sinister motives but it somehow enforced a system in which you have to either accept full surveillance or end up being increasingly excluded from the socioeconomic sphere. This is the danger of solving the human factor with pure technological means - it doesn't really solve it, instead the human conflict is transported into a more radical one.
  - glogla 8y ago
    Since Google deletes you wife's gmail if you sell your nexus (or how it was), I don't think so.
    - ViViDboarder 8y ago
      Huh? I’ve sold many Nexus phones and my wife’s Gmail is perfectly intact.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  I'm sorry, but how on Earth is that a patent? Things like this make me believe less in patent reform, and more in complete abolishment.
  - jammygit 8y ago
    what worries me about patent abolishment is the contracts employees would have to sign to work places. It would make career maneuverability absolutely brutal if every single thing was a trade secret.
- 8y ago
auslander 8y ago
I switched to using Private Browsing windows and tabs, which clears all tracking cookies on close. And browse via always-on VPN to hide my IP. Much safer, imho. Still unresolved are history leaks via Referer, from things like fonts, ajax, tagmanager google.com API calls, present on all websites. Why web people link so much Google stuff in their websites is a mystery.
- Godel_unicode 8y ago
  They produce a lot of things that are super useful for avoiding edge cases. Consider Google fonts, for instance.
  - auslander 8y ago
    Can't you host all fonts you use on your server? Why use remote google fonts?
    - fenwick67 8y ago
      Google fonts does a bunch of stuff, it looks at user-agent to determine what css to serve and there are at least 10 font files for each weight of each font you want to use. It's not impossible to replicate but using Google fonts is convenient
- dgrove 8y ago
  You're not inherently trusting your VPN service to: a) not track you b) not keep logs c) not disclose this information to your actual ISP You're also now just sitting behind whatever ISP your VPN uses which knows everything you're doing and sells it back to who-ever. If your not rotating your VPN services that still allows you to be tracked via that IP. At the end of the day all your data still belongs to someone and can be used for whatever. Until DNS over TLS is complete and rolled out across the board your metadata can still be used. Not to mention all of the other things associated with this. Even being connected to a VPN via your phone will still leak information like your coarse location, wifi networks and bluetooth beacons nearby which all get sent to your primary phone carrier and whatever applications you use.
aasasd 8y ago
Still not sure whether, and why, these containers are needed when Firefox's internal ‘tracking protection’ is enabled.
- mcintyre1994 8y ago
  For anyone else wondering, this is now “content blocking” and by default is in private browsing mode only but can be set to always on. Sounds like a good idea. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection
  - aasasd 8y ago
    I've thought for a minute when looking at that option, and couldn't think of why I wouldn't want it, so turned it on. IDK if it misses anything but seems to be working pretty good, judging by messages in the console. It's rather aggressive, even: blocks Yandex's maps embedded on other sites (though iirc doesn't block Google's maps).
    - slededit 8y ago
      It does trip a lot of “turn off your ad blocker” nag screens.
- ndnxhs 8y ago
  Firefox tracking blocking is a fairly weak "make the web a bit safer while breaking nothing". This extensions actually does break stuff like google logins on non google websites.
hmmokcool 8y ago
Incredible!
lukewrites 8y ago
This is a cool idea for an add-on, I use the Multi-Account Containers add on along with Cookie AutoDelete to do basically the same thing for a number of sites: Google, Facebook, twitter, linkedin (rot in hell, linkedin), amazon, etc. I like having my cookies there so I don't have to log in every time, but also don't want to be tracked around the web. This looks like a great way to help people who don't want to fiddle with settings to get the same sort of protection. It'd be nice if Multi-Account Containers had an option to add these sites. I should cut a PR for that, probably :\
- jillesvangurp 8y ago
  I use this as well. You don't need a site specific addon with this. It's actually useful for separating my different google accounts as well. I'd love an extension that makes all tabs in the a particular container private. That way, any kind of tracking would be opt in by assigning it a non private container and limited to that container.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    I'm still waiting for bookmarks with the target container baked in. I also use separate containers for three different Google accounts, but opening a bookmark to a Google drive document or file is annoying, because I always have to open a specific container for that Google account tab first so the document access attempt is from the right account.
- halo 8y ago
  I tried using Multi-Account Containers because I loved the idea but found the user interface rather clunkier and more manual than I hoped. What I really want is for it to be optimised for the common use case with each domain automatically put in its own container, with some whitelisting of common grouped services (e.g. MS and Xbox Live, Facebook and Instagram). It's very rare that I actually want to share any cookie info between sites as most of it is tracking. In the rare situation you do, the browser could let you disable containers or add them to a group. I'd also like something that automatically opts out of tracking preferences, as well as something that periodically deletes cookies/localstorage (say every 14 days). You could then set it all up and forget about it.
ashokcsstudent 8y ago
Would be nice to have social network container, rather than having individual google, facebook container.
- arunsathiya 8y ago
  Which websites would you define under social container?
  - tadzik_ 8y ago
    I'd redefine it as a "mega-website/tracker container", to limit the scope of those sites that get seemingly everywhere. That would include the social networks but also the likes of google and maybe amazon.
tootahe45 8y ago
Can somebody tdlr everybody why this is needed in addition to the official container extension?
- jesperlang 8y ago
  I'm wondering this as well. Firefox has built-in containers. Can't we just use them? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers
- tialaramex 8y ago
  Containers need curating. You could in theory do that yourself, but you probably don't know how in practice (most users) or don't want to (most remaining users). These pre-made containers are curated by their developer so they do all that work once.
ayoisaiah 8y ago
This is cool but I don't think I will be using it. I already use Searchonymous[1] to prevent Google from tracking my web searches while also browsing YouTube in a separate container where I'm not signed in. I really on Google's sign-in mechanism for many websites and this would probably interfere with that. [1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/searchonymous/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/searchonymous...
beaker52 8y ago
I'm probably in a minority around these here parts but... Am I the only one who doesn't worry too much about all this "tracking"? Trying to avoid tracking is like some weird obsession/hobby. You go to all these lengths and then you realise they were tracking you anyway, so you throw your arms up in disgust, exclaiming how evil they are and start trying to block that vector, soon enough rinse and repeat. I was there too only a few years ago but I've since given up and my life has gotten measurably better because of it - I no longer feel like I'm trying to "stick it to the man", I don't have to integrate a bunch of different services in an attempt to keep x and y in separate products to reduce my "awareness surface area" to any one company. I just stopped worrying so much. Simple as that. And I'm really not convinced some evil affliction is going to strike me down as a result. Next time you find yourself wasting hours of your time trying to make yourself "private" just think of all the other fun stuff you could be doing. But if you want best bang for minute spent worrying privacy: Use Incognito, uBlock, Proton Mail and a VPN. 20 minutes of your life and you're pretty darn private. This should cover you without labouring over choices of extensions etc.
- siquick 8y ago
  Agreed - it seems to come from a similar mindset as being obsessed with "websites must run without Javascript because 0.00003% of HN users disable JS".
- jrs95 8y ago
  Another aspect of this I don't see mentioned nearly as much is that attempting to be more private may actually make you stand out more in terms of government surveillance. They wouldn't be getting as much data on you from companies, but odds are they're still getting plenty, and in the case of taking extreme measures to limit that it only takes one mistake to undo a lot work. So hypothetically if you did have something to hide, or if you really wanted to maximize privacy for a subset of your life, you would allow most of what you do to be tracked in order to appear "normal"
  - llukas 8y ago
    Not wanting to be tracked is normal.
brynjolf 8y ago
For everyone not knowing why you would use this extension, it is so the container breaks after Google. Say you Google spaghetti, after you click you defined food.com to be a food container, with this extension it will break out of Google container into food container. It is pretty great except it creates two tabs for me and breaks history. If that could be fixed or would be flawless.
est 8y ago
1. use google.ca as default search engine 2. disable cookie & javascript for *.google.ca 3. disable all google ads & analytics domains.
- SXX 8y ago
  4. enjoy annoying captcha during every search 5. switch to duckduckgo
  - est 8y ago
    for the first few days, yes. But it's smooth afterwards.
    - auslander 8y ago
      Because they linked your IP to your profile. Now your searches are logged to a person, smooth sailing.
      - est 8y ago
        How on earth can they link a IP to an profile with js and cookie disabled?
        auslander 8y ago
        You previously logged in as you from the same IP, many times.
mothsonasloth 8y ago
I've tried this tool and had to remove it after a few weeks as the continuity breaks when clicking links on google results. Its just too annoying having to re-google something you search for after clicking the first result and losing your history.
_jomo 8y ago
Containers are a feature built into Firefox. There are extensions that let you use them more generally with any given website. It's also quite useful to log into websites with multiple accounts at the same time. However, to prevent tracking I mostly use CookieAutoDelete [0] which only stores Cookies for sites that I have whitelisted after the tab is closed. It's really just a handful of sites I visit frequently and don't want to log in every time. Cookies aren't required for anything else. Also, not having a Google account comes in handy to prevent tracking by Google. My default search engine is DuckDuckGo. 0: https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/ https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelet...
- m_st 8y ago
  Exact same setup here. Works great.
- aembleton 8y ago
  I just block them for everything except for first party sites using uMatrix. For some sites I need to allow google.com cookies otherwise I will keep getting recaptcha checks.
- rem1313 8y ago
  I also find CookieAutoDelete invaluable, particularly in combination with "I don't care about cookies" extension which removes almost all of the cookie warning dialogs which you would get otherwise. Web is usable again :)
- mard 8y ago
  >to prevent tracking I mostly use CookieAutoDelete Removing cookies will not prevent anyone from tracking. Simple example: I once visited an online shop from browser profile in which I never logged into Facebook. Few hours later I switched to another browser profile, used exclusively for Facebook, and I got an ad on my timeline from said online shop, for the exact product I was looking for earlier in another browser profile. Facebook associated my two browsing personas without cookies, most likely using a combination of my browser's request headers and IP address. Not to mention that JavaScript (if enabled) provides additional and extremely detailed fingerprinting capabilities. In my experience, Google seems to have a better track record in terms of respecting cookies (or lack thereof) as the main carrier of online privacy management. But I think it's just an illusion. They're just obscuring it to not freak people out too much the way like Facebook does. The information is still there. They have it, from analytics, fonts, reCaptcha and all other means of their creep. To prevent tracking, you need to have a full control over information you send to the internet, including browser request headers, IP address, behavior patterns of web browser, and so on. Cookie management alone is just a fallacy and gives a false feeling of control over privacy. This is also why I consider those "privacy containers" broken by design. They just operate on cookies and don't contain anything besides cookies. I would even consider them harmful because of their misleading nature.
ha1zum 8y ago
If I keep my whole Google (https://myactivity.google.com https://myactivity.google.com) and Youtube history completely empty but still logged in to Google account everyday (gmail and youtube on Firefox), are they still tracking me around the web?
- r3bl 8y ago
  They shouldn't, but that doesn't mean they aren't: https://apnews.com/828aefab64d4411bac257a07c1af0ecb https://apnews.com/828aefab64d4411bac257a07c1af0ecb
apexkid 8y ago
Why not just have container for every damn site. No one should track me
- syoc 8y ago
  Have a look at the temporary containers add-on which does just that. It is completely usable. I just create a permanent container for sites where I want persistent cookies.
rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
I prefer this setup: - install Cookie Auto-Delete (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autode...) - set it to delete all local data for all domains, 15 seconds after its last tab is closed - create a Firefox container for untrusted apps you can't get rid of (e.g Gmail, Facebook) and set these domains to open in this "untrusted" container by default - set Cookie Auto-Delete not to delete the data for this particular container - whitelist the few domains you trust so that you can keep their sessions open in the Default container Result: No need to use a secondary browser or to install special "Google/Facebook/etc Containers for Firefox". You always browse the Web incognito by default! Only when you visit some particular webpages do you enter a custom container that keep your personal data separate from other activities. This has worked nicely for 2+ years, with other essential extensions such as uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, HTTPS Everywhere and Decentraleyes.
- Propen 8y ago
  I ended up using the exact same solution! The only annoying thing is that I want "untrusted apps" to open external links in a new DEFAULT tab so that I don't carry over the whitelisted cookies but that requires manual "right click > open in" with the default setup.
- sophistication 8y ago
  … all of which is futile as long as NSA records everything and their databases will leak one day.
  - qrbLPHiKpiux 8y ago
    Anonymity will always be greater than privacy. What I'm saying is that there should be a focus on being anonymous without a care (almost) of what you're doing.
    - sophistication 8y ago
      I just think it's a futile kind of paranoia. Your anomalous behavior puts you on some list. Writing about it here puts you on some list. As every admin knows so well, spying on user data is much too easy for that not being done all over. We'd need to tear down large scale digital infrastructure to make even a dent into the problem of massive abuse potential. Deleting cookies is cope.
JazCE 8y ago
Could really do with one of these for pornhub and such sites.
andrepd 8y ago
Better yet: use uBlock origin in advanced mode (dynamic filtering) and block 3rd party frames and scripts by default.
drngdds 8y ago
What does this add over Privacy Badger + uBlock Origin?
openloop 8y ago
I use iceweasel personally.
heynewton 8y ago
It seems to not be working well. I've already have the Firefox Multi-Account Containers [1] extension, but I wanted to try this extension. The problem is that it has some conflicts, and now after uninstalling it I can't open any *google.com domains, it crashes and closes the tab. 1: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...
mattio 8y ago
Too bad I don't use firefox xD
badrabbit 8y ago
They still fingerprint your browser. I hope there are better protections against that but also,things like mobile device details in user agents would no longer be sent to the server.
carrja99 8y ago
Facebook too
ronjouch 8y ago
Bug warning: this is a neat container helper, but it will break your Back button when clicking on Google searches. Relevant addon issue: https://github.com/containers-everywhere/contain-google/issues/8 https://github.com/containers-everywhere/contain-google/issu...
rplnt 8y ago
I think, and always thought of it as intuitive with the way I use browsers, that sessions should work as a tree. So only child tabs in that tree should see the contents of parent's session. If I open a new tab, it's a new tree. Bookmarks could create permanent root node.
- Disp4tch 8y ago
  The Tree Style Tabs add-on supports this behavior with Firefox's containers, it is awesome.
  - bpye 8y ago
    Damn I'm gonna have to give that a go.
  - rplnt 8y ago
    That's awesome, thanks. I've tried the Tree Style Tabs in the past, it made a lot of sense to me, but unfortunately I had other issues with FF back then. Now with the containers support there's more incentive to try it again.
  - dave_pascua 8y ago
    I found "Tree Style Tab", which doesn't mention anything about containers. You have a link and/or author for the add-on to which you're referring?
- swift532 8y ago
  Wouldn't you then have to log in twice to the same site if you have it opened in multiple tabs?
  - mcny 8y ago
    Sounds like a feature to me. I'd love it if things worked that way.
    - folkrav 8y ago
dzsuv 8y ago
How can I be sure that with all these tools I have really avoided tracking? I have PiHole/VPN/privacy browser extensions installed. Javascript is disabled for the majority of the sites. LittleSnitch supposedly takes care of the chatty non-browser programs. All my 3G/4G data goes through PiHole. I have only a selected few apps installed on my phone. Paranoia? Yes. Do I have the piece of mind? No. I just simply cannot stay 24/7 on Wireshark examininig every outgoing packet. Unless the legislation changes for good I really don't see how this mess can be tackled.
beaconfield 8y ago
Thanks this will be very useful.
mr_overalls 8y ago
Does anyone have input on whether Perflyst, the author of this addon, is trustworthy?
- roryokane 8y ago
  You can conveniently audit the source code of (the current version of) an add-on by installing the “Extension source viewer” add-on (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/crxviewer/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/crxviewer/) and then visiting the page of the add-on to inspect. I haven’t read through all the code of Google Container, but it only has 31 lines of JSON and 422 lines of JavaScript – smaller than most add-ons.
everyone 8y ago
Question: I have 0 knowledge of the web and whatnot.. I already have privacy badger, would this also help? or would it make no difference?
heroprotagonist 8y ago
I found using this, with an isolation setting for specific domains, to be a better option: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-con... An isolation policy will let you treat subdomain different from main domain. So I can use mail.google.com and still always be logged in, while a search from address bar or elsewhere will open in a temporary container that lasts only as long as the browser tab. The persistent "Google" container I have has domains mail.google.com, accounts.google.com, and myaccount.google.com.. everything else loads in temporary containers. Combine with this to remove the link stubs on SERP so you're not sending back click data if there's a shadow profile based on IP and browser metrics.. so shadow profile only knows what you searched and not necessarily what you clicked, and its cleaner for container assignment when opening links in new tabs because there's no brief hop to the same temp container google search loads in before going on to a separate temporary container for the target site: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-search-link-fix/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-search...

959 points by LukeWalsh 8y ago

I definitely want this, but the only reason I use Facebook Container is because it's an official Mozilla addon. I encouraged Mozilla to pursue a Google version, but it seems like they've declined for now, and were just looking to capitalize on the press wave about Facebook.

ardy42 8y ago
> I encouraged Mozilla to pursue a Google version, but it seems like they've declined for now Doesn't Mozilla get a significant fraction of its revenue from their search deal with Google?
- kenhwang 8y ago
  $539m of their $562m revenue last year came from "royalty deals" like Google. They don't break out specifics, but I'd guess Google is a significant contributor.
  - Cyphase 8y ago
    That's millions, not thousands, in case someone didn't know.
  - jammygit 8y ago
    Crazy how high a percent that is...
sirn 8y ago
I'm curious, why not just use Firefox Multi-Account Container[1] and setup Facebook and Google to open in its own container[3]? The way I see Facebook Container (as an outside who have been using Multi-Account Container for a while) is that it tried to ride on the Delete Facebook wave few months ago to make people aware of Multi-Account Container functionality, so these Google Container/Reddit Container/etc. always seems weird to me. [1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account... [2]: https://imgur.com/KZuJmgq https://imgur.com/KZuJmgq
- dralley 8y ago
  Facebook container has tha two main benefits over multi-account containers, which is that it requires zero setup, and that when you click a link on Facebook it drops out of the container.
  - StreakyCobra 8y ago
    As a workaround for your second point, it is possible to right-click a link and use "Open Link in New Container Tab » No Container". Still a workaround though.

tedunangst 8y ago

I'm not sure an addon per tracker is web scale.

llukas 8y ago
Regular trackers can be blocked outright. One may need to use fb and google from time to time.
mastazi 8y ago
Firefox already has a built-in option to block all tracking[1], the reason why this add-on exists is that it lets you keep Google into a separated Firefox Container[2] [1] see here https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection?redirectlocale=en-US&redirectslug=tracking-protection-pbm https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection?red... or, alternatively, you can use Privacy Badger or one of the many ad-blockers that let you enable tracking-related lists, such as uBlock Origin. [2] see here: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

jmathai 8y ago

Isn't it possible to have a "per TLD" container addon? I'm fine to be logged into Google and even have Google collect information when I'm using any of their services (same for Facebook). What I'm really after is a way to sandbox every site to only have information I explicitly grant it while using their service.

sirn 8y ago
I believe First Party Isolation is what you're looking for. To enable, change `privacy.firstparty.isolate` to `true`. See also previous discussion[1] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17944991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17944991
- sleavey 8y ago
  I've been using first party isolation ever since it was ported from Tor. It's excellent, but be aware that it breaks stuff, usually JavaScript, on about 5% of websites (anecdata). I find this to be well worth it, especially to find out which sites do the worst tracking. I have a separate Firefox profile I use for rare occasions when I need to allow third party tracking in order to do something.
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
Google has... literally hundreds of domains. Just assuming *.google.com would miss things like googleusercontent.com or googleapis.com or doubleclick.net. The Facebook container basically grabs "all domains by Facebook" and sandboxes them together (so they can still interoperate amongst themselves), while isolating it off from other sites you visit. Sure, you could do a lot of this yourself with different browsers/browser profiles/containers, but it'd be far better to have someone provide that list as a prebuilt addon.
- baroffoos 8y ago
  I really hate websites that do this because I have to go and whitelist the hundreds of domains that important resources are coming from.

zubair_io 8y ago

Disconnect can block Facebook, Google and twitter

und3fined 8y ago

just facebook.com for Facebook production With google, i use "Always Open in this Container" each google service, this better for Container google service

kerng 8y ago

This is cool, will install. Maybe Firefox embraces this idea and adopts the fork.

PinkMilkshake 8y ago
Unfortunately, that would be biting the hand that feeds.
- xfitm3 8y ago
  Do you think the anti-tracking measures (specifically blocking third party cookies by default) in Firefox 65 is bad for Google?
  - PinkMilkshake 8y ago
    Possibly, but that's an untargeted and justifiable privacy feature in a browser who's primary shtick is being privacy focused. I think if Mozilla included code that specifically targets Google, they would be crossing a line.
LukeWalsh 8y ago
That would certainly make it easier to trust this extension. I'm curious why Mozilla would ship a Facebook container but not a Google container.
- Holybeds 8y ago
  Because Google pays a lot of money to Mozilla?
  - LukeWalsh 8y ago
    Then an interesting question is IF the Facebook container stemmed from principles 4 & 5 from the Mozilla Manifesto applied to the dominant social utility; is there a reason other than money that the same principles would not lead to a decision to build an add-on that gives people an option to contain Google? It's certainly not a technical limitation. It seems natural to posit that money is the issue but is it so easy to believe that a foundation most of us trust would compromise its core values? As mentioned elsewhere hacky add-ons cannot be the end solution, and will not be widely adopted unless incorporated as defaults.

stdplaceholder 8y ago

In order to use this supposed privacy-enhancing feature, you must allow the authors of this extension total control over everything you do on the web. Add-ons are automatically updated in Firefox by default, so you can review this code now and it will change later. This seems like a poor trade.

hyperpallium 8y ago
Email me to subscribe to my anti-spam service! Enter your credit card details to check if they've been stolen!
- black-tea 8y ago
  There is a site that is very popular here that does just that (haveibeenpwned).
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    No it doesn't, it does not ask you to provide your own password.
    - eecc 8y ago
      Or CC details... ;)
    - fwn 8y ago
      This is wrong, since grandparent did not ask for passwords. Quote: > Email me to subscribe to my anti-spam service! This is precisely what haveibeenpwned asks for, as your parent wrote.
    - DavideNL 8y ago
      It does: https://haveibeenpwned.com/Passwords https://haveibeenpwned.com/Passwords
    - auslander 8y ago
      Troy Hunt launched another one, which does ask for password. And sells you 1Password after check :)

AlexCoventry 8y ago

How does this compare to extensions like uBlock Origin and Ghostery?

8bitsrule 8y ago
Two different schemes. uBlock loads privately-constructed filtersets which are used to decide what net contents to block. (That blockage can be customized per-site in advanced mode.) Each FF container keeps content associated with one or multiple sites 'isolated' (in theory) so they can't be 'seen' by sites in other containers ... all in the browser.

cog74657 8y ago

not sure why you'd use this over the Multi-Account Containers addon by Mozilla. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

ww520 8y ago
It serves different purpose. These Facebook/Google containers are for automatic isolation. The Multi-Account Containers is for creating and managing containers.
LukeWalsh 8y ago
The Firefox Multi-Account Containers is a more general extension that allows you to create containers and determine which sites open in each container. This extension can be customized to suit your needs for multiple sites and multiple logins but takes more time to set up than Google Container.
- toastal 8y ago
  Exactly. It's easy to tell a privacy-unsavvy person to install this and the Facebook-only container rather than explaining how to containerize and set up all the specific URLs and what the broader concept means. The multi-account container is pretty cumbersome to set up despite being easy.
  - inferiorhuman 8y ago
    The facebook-only container is really slick. If you go to facebook.com or instagram.com it'll replace the current tab with a FB container automatically.
Vinnl 8y ago
I think this one also makes sure that links you click inside the Google container get opened outside of it?
8bitsrule 8y ago

beefhash 8y ago

This is probably a good idea in theory. In practice, it might lower your internal ReCAPTCHA score and end up prompting you more actual CAPTCHAs, possibly up to unsolvable[1] ones. [1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US9407661 https://patents.google.com/patent/US9407661

xfs 8y ago
... a tarpit nominally designed for bot detection and anti-spam. I'm sure the patent wasn't created with sinister motives but it somehow enforced a system in which you have to either accept full surveillance or end up being increasingly excluded from the socioeconomic sphere. This is the danger of solving the human factor with pure technological means - it doesn't really solve it, instead the human conflict is transported into a more radical one.
- glogla 8y ago
  Since Google deletes you wife's gmail if you sell your nexus (or how it was), I don't think so.
  - ViViDboarder 8y ago
    Huh? I’ve sold many Nexus phones and my wife’s Gmail is perfectly intact.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
I'm sorry, but how on Earth is that a patent? Things like this make me believe less in patent reform, and more in complete abolishment.
- jammygit 8y ago
  what worries me about patent abolishment is the contracts employees would have to sign to work places. It would make career maneuverability absolutely brutal if every single thing was a trade secret.
8y ago

auslander 8y ago

I switched to using Private Browsing windows and tabs, which clears all tracking cookies on close. And browse via always-on VPN to hide my IP. Much safer, imho. Still unresolved are history leaks via Referer, from things like fonts, ajax, tagmanager google.com API calls, present on all websites. Why web people link so much Google stuff in their websites is a mystery.

Godel_unicode 8y ago
They produce a lot of things that are super useful for avoiding edge cases. Consider Google fonts, for instance.
- auslander 8y ago
  Can't you host all fonts you use on your server? Why use remote google fonts?
  - fenwick67 8y ago
    Google fonts does a bunch of stuff, it looks at user-agent to determine what css to serve and there are at least 10 font files for each weight of each font you want to use. It's not impossible to replicate but using Google fonts is convenient
dgrove 8y ago
You're not inherently trusting your VPN service to: a) not track you b) not keep logs c) not disclose this information to your actual ISP You're also now just sitting behind whatever ISP your VPN uses which knows everything you're doing and sells it back to who-ever. If your not rotating your VPN services that still allows you to be tracked via that IP. At the end of the day all your data still belongs to someone and can be used for whatever. Until DNS over TLS is complete and rolled out across the board your metadata can still be used. Not to mention all of the other things associated with this. Even being connected to a VPN via your phone will still leak information like your coarse location, wifi networks and bluetooth beacons nearby which all get sent to your primary phone carrier and whatever applications you use.

aasasd 8y ago

Still not sure whether, and why, these containers are needed when Firefox's internal ‘tracking protection’ is enabled.

mcintyre1994 8y ago
For anyone else wondering, this is now “content blocking” and by default is in private browsing mode only but can be set to always on. Sounds like a good idea. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection
- aasasd 8y ago
  I've thought for a minute when looking at that option, and couldn't think of why I wouldn't want it, so turned it on. IDK if it misses anything but seems to be working pretty good, judging by messages in the console. It's rather aggressive, even: blocks Yandex's maps embedded on other sites (though iirc doesn't block Google's maps).
  - slededit 8y ago
    It does trip a lot of “turn off your ad blocker” nag screens.
ndnxhs 8y ago
Firefox tracking blocking is a fairly weak "make the web a bit safer while breaking nothing". This extensions actually does break stuff like google logins on non google websites.

hmmokcool 8y ago

Incredible!

lukewrites 8y ago

This is a cool idea for an add-on, I use the Multi-Account Containers add on along with Cookie AutoDelete to do basically the same thing for a number of sites: Google, Facebook, twitter, linkedin (rot in hell, linkedin), amazon, etc. I like having my cookies there so I don't have to log in every time, but also don't want to be tracked around the web. This looks like a great way to help people who don't want to fiddle with settings to get the same sort of protection. It'd be nice if Multi-Account Containers had an option to add these sites. I should cut a PR for that, probably :\

jillesvangurp 8y ago
I use this as well. You don't need a site specific addon with this. It's actually useful for separating my different google accounts as well. I'd love an extension that makes all tabs in the a particular container private. That way, any kind of tracking would be opt in by assigning it a non private container and limited to that container.
- kbenson 8y ago
  I'm still waiting for bookmarks with the target container baked in. I also use separate containers for three different Google accounts, but opening a bookmark to a Google drive document or file is annoying, because I always have to open a specific container for that Google account tab first so the document access attempt is from the right account.
halo 8y ago
I tried using Multi-Account Containers because I loved the idea but found the user interface rather clunkier and more manual than I hoped. What I really want is for it to be optimised for the common use case with each domain automatically put in its own container, with some whitelisting of common grouped services (e.g. MS and Xbox Live, Facebook and Instagram). It's very rare that I actually want to share any cookie info between sites as most of it is tracking. In the rare situation you do, the browser could let you disable containers or add them to a group. I'd also like something that automatically opts out of tracking preferences, as well as something that periodically deletes cookies/localstorage (say every 14 days). You could then set it all up and forget about it.

ashokcsstudent 8y ago

Would be nice to have social network container, rather than having individual google, facebook container.

arunsathiya 8y ago
Which websites would you define under social container?
- tadzik_ 8y ago
  I'd redefine it as a "mega-website/tracker container", to limit the scope of those sites that get seemingly everywhere. That would include the social networks but also the likes of google and maybe amazon.

tootahe45 8y ago

Can somebody tdlr everybody why this is needed in addition to the official container extension?

jesperlang 8y ago
I'm wondering this as well. Firefox has built-in containers. Can't we just use them? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers
tialaramex 8y ago
Containers need curating. You could in theory do that yourself, but you probably don't know how in practice (most users) or don't want to (most remaining users). These pre-made containers are curated by their developer so they do all that work once.

ayoisaiah 8y ago

This is cool but I don't think I will be using it. I already use Searchonymous[1] to prevent Google from tracking my web searches while also browsing YouTube in a separate container where I'm not signed in. I really on Google's sign-in mechanism for many websites and this would probably interfere with that. [1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/searchonymous/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/searchonymous...

beaker52 8y ago

I'm probably in a minority around these here parts but... Am I the only one who doesn't worry too much about all this "tracking"? Trying to avoid tracking is like some weird obsession/hobby. You go to all these lengths and then you realise they were tracking you anyway, so you throw your arms up in disgust, exclaiming how evil they are and start trying to block that vector, soon enough rinse and repeat. I was there too only a few years ago but I've since given up and my life has gotten measurably better because of it - I no longer feel like I'm trying to "stick it to the man", I don't have to integrate a bunch of different services in an attempt to keep x and y in separate products to reduce my "awareness surface area" to any one company. I just stopped worrying so much. Simple as that. And I'm really not convinced some evil affliction is going to strike me down as a result. Next time you find yourself wasting hours of your time trying to make yourself "private" just think of all the other fun stuff you could be doing. But if you want best bang for minute spent worrying privacy: Use Incognito, uBlock, Proton Mail and a VPN. 20 minutes of your life and you're pretty darn private. This should cover you without labouring over choices of extensions etc.

siquick 8y ago
Agreed - it seems to come from a similar mindset as being obsessed with "websites must run without Javascript because 0.00003% of HN users disable JS".
jrs95 8y ago
Another aspect of this I don't see mentioned nearly as much is that attempting to be more private may actually make you stand out more in terms of government surveillance. They wouldn't be getting as much data on you from companies, but odds are they're still getting plenty, and in the case of taking extreme measures to limit that it only takes one mistake to undo a lot work. So hypothetically if you did have something to hide, or if you really wanted to maximize privacy for a subset of your life, you would allow most of what you do to be tracked in order to appear "normal"
- llukas 8y ago
  Not wanting to be tracked is normal.

brynjolf 8y ago

For everyone not knowing why you would use this extension, it is so the container breaks after Google. Say you Google spaghetti, after you click you defined food.com to be a food container, with this extension it will break out of Google container into food container. It is pretty great except it creates two tabs for me and breaks history. If that could be fixed or would be flawless.

est 8y ago

1. use google.ca as default search engine 2. disable cookie & javascript for *.google.ca 3. disable all google ads & analytics domains.

SXX 8y ago
4. enjoy annoying captcha during every search 5. switch to duckduckgo
- est 8y ago
  for the first few days, yes. But it's smooth afterwards.
  - auslander 8y ago
    Because they linked your IP to your profile. Now your searches are logged to a person, smooth sailing.
    - est 8y ago
      How on earth can they link a IP to an profile with js and cookie disabled?
      - auslander 8y ago
        You previously logged in as you from the same IP, many times.

mothsonasloth 8y ago

I've tried this tool and had to remove it after a few weeks as the continuity breaks when clicking links on google results. Its just too annoying having to re-google something you search for after clicking the first result and losing your history.

_jomo 8y ago

Containers are a feature built into Firefox. There are extensions that let you use them more generally with any given website. It's also quite useful to log into websites with multiple accounts at the same time. However, to prevent tracking I mostly use CookieAutoDelete [0] which only stores Cookies for sites that I have whitelisted after the tab is closed. It's really just a handful of sites I visit frequently and don't want to log in every time. Cookies aren't required for anything else. Also, not having a Google account comes in handy to prevent tracking by Google. My default search engine is DuckDuckGo. 0: https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/ https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelet...

m_st 8y ago
Exact same setup here. Works great.
aembleton 8y ago
I just block them for everything except for first party sites using uMatrix. For some sites I need to allow google.com cookies otherwise I will keep getting recaptcha checks.
rem1313 8y ago
I also find CookieAutoDelete invaluable, particularly in combination with "I don't care about cookies" extension which removes almost all of the cookie warning dialogs which you would get otherwise. Web is usable again :)
mard 8y ago
>to prevent tracking I mostly use CookieAutoDelete Removing cookies will not prevent anyone from tracking. Simple example: I once visited an online shop from browser profile in which I never logged into Facebook. Few hours later I switched to another browser profile, used exclusively for Facebook, and I got an ad on my timeline from said online shop, for the exact product I was looking for earlier in another browser profile. Facebook associated my two browsing personas without cookies, most likely using a combination of my browser's request headers and IP address. Not to mention that JavaScript (if enabled) provides additional and extremely detailed fingerprinting capabilities. In my experience, Google seems to have a better track record in terms of respecting cookies (or lack thereof) as the main carrier of online privacy management. But I think it's just an illusion. They're just obscuring it to not freak people out too much the way like Facebook does. The information is still there. They have it, from analytics, fonts, reCaptcha and all other means of their creep. To prevent tracking, you need to have a full control over information you send to the internet, including browser request headers, IP address, behavior patterns of web browser, and so on. Cookie management alone is just a fallacy and gives a false feeling of control over privacy. This is also why I consider those "privacy containers" broken by design. They just operate on cookies and don't contain anything besides cookies. I would even consider them harmful because of their misleading nature.

ha1zum 8y ago

If I keep my whole Google (https://myactivity.google.com https://myactivity.google.com) and Youtube history completely empty but still logged in to Google account everyday (gmail and youtube on Firefox), are they still tracking me around the web?

r3bl 8y ago
They shouldn't, but that doesn't mean they aren't: https://apnews.com/828aefab64d4411bac257a07c1af0ecb https://apnews.com/828aefab64d4411bac257a07c1af0ecb

apexkid 8y ago

Why not just have container for every damn site. No one should track me

syoc 8y ago
Have a look at the temporary containers add-on which does just that. It is completely usable. I just create a permanent container for sites where I want persistent cookies.

rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago

I prefer this setup: - install Cookie Auto-Delete (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autode...) - set it to delete all local data for all domains, 15 seconds after its last tab is closed - create a Firefox container for untrusted apps you can't get rid of (e.g Gmail, Facebook) and set these domains to open in this "untrusted" container by default - set Cookie Auto-Delete not to delete the data for this particular container - whitelist the few domains you trust so that you can keep their sessions open in the Default container Result: No need to use a secondary browser or to install special "Google/Facebook/etc Containers for Firefox". You always browse the Web incognito by default! Only when you visit some particular webpages do you enter a custom container that keep your personal data separate from other activities. This has worked nicely for 2+ years, with other essential extensions such as uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, HTTPS Everywhere and Decentraleyes.

Propen 8y ago
I ended up using the exact same solution! The only annoying thing is that I want "untrusted apps" to open external links in a new DEFAULT tab so that I don't carry over the whitelisted cookies but that requires manual "right click > open in" with the default setup.
sophistication 8y ago
… all of which is futile as long as NSA records everything and their databases will leak one day.
- qrbLPHiKpiux 8y ago
  Anonymity will always be greater than privacy. What I'm saying is that there should be a focus on being anonymous without a care (almost) of what you're doing.
  - sophistication 8y ago
    I just think it's a futile kind of paranoia. Your anomalous behavior puts you on some list. Writing about it here puts you on some list. As every admin knows so well, spying on user data is much too easy for that not being done all over. We'd need to tear down large scale digital infrastructure to make even a dent into the problem of massive abuse potential. Deleting cookies is cope.

JazCE 8y ago

Could really do with one of these for pornhub and such sites.

andrepd 8y ago

Better yet: use uBlock origin in advanced mode (dynamic filtering) and block 3rd party frames and scripts by default.

drngdds 8y ago

What does this add over Privacy Badger + uBlock Origin?

openloop 8y ago

I use iceweasel personally.

heynewton 8y ago

It seems to not be working well. I've already have the Firefox Multi-Account Containers [1] extension, but I wanted to try this extension. The problem is that it has some conflicts, and now after uninstalling it I can't open any *google.com domains, it crashes and closes the tab. 1: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

mattio 8y ago

Too bad I don't use firefox xD

badrabbit 8y ago

They still fingerprint your browser. I hope there are better protections against that but also,things like mobile device details in user agents would no longer be sent to the server.

carrja99 8y ago

Facebook too

ronjouch 8y ago

Bug warning: this is a neat container helper, but it will break your Back button when clicking on Google searches. Relevant addon issue: https://github.com/containers-everywhere/contain-google/issues/8 https://github.com/containers-everywhere/contain-google/issu...

rplnt 8y ago

I think, and always thought of it as intuitive with the way I use browsers, that sessions should work as a tree. So only child tabs in that tree should see the contents of parent's session. If I open a new tab, it's a new tree. Bookmarks could create permanent root node.

Disp4tch 8y ago
The Tree Style Tabs add-on supports this behavior with Firefox's containers, it is awesome.
- bpye 8y ago
  Damn I'm gonna have to give that a go.
- rplnt 8y ago
  That's awesome, thanks. I've tried the Tree Style Tabs in the past, it made a lot of sense to me, but unfortunately I had other issues with FF back then. Now with the containers support there's more incentive to try it again.
- dave_pascua 8y ago
  I found "Tree Style Tab", which doesn't mention anything about containers. You have a link and/or author for the add-on to which you're referring?
swift532 8y ago
Wouldn't you then have to log in twice to the same site if you have it opened in multiple tabs?
- mcny 8y ago
  Sounds like a feature to me. I'd love it if things worked that way.
  - folkrav 8y ago

dzsuv 8y ago

How can I be sure that with all these tools I have really avoided tracking? I have PiHole/VPN/privacy browser extensions installed. Javascript is disabled for the majority of the sites. LittleSnitch supposedly takes care of the chatty non-browser programs. All my 3G/4G data goes through PiHole. I have only a selected few apps installed on my phone. Paranoia? Yes. Do I have the piece of mind? No. I just simply cannot stay 24/7 on Wireshark examininig every outgoing packet. Unless the legislation changes for good I really don't see how this mess can be tackled.

beaconfield 8y ago

Thanks this will be very useful.

mr_overalls 8y ago

Does anyone have input on whether Perflyst, the author of this addon, is trustworthy?

roryokane 8y ago
You can conveniently audit the source code of (the current version of) an add-on by installing the “Extension source viewer” add-on (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/crxviewer/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/crxviewer/) and then visiting the page of the add-on to inspect. I haven’t read through all the code of Google Container, but it only has 31 lines of JSON and 422 lines of JavaScript – smaller than most add-ons.

everyone 8y ago

Question: I have 0 knowledge of the web and whatnot.. I already have privacy badger, would this also help? or would it make no difference?

heroprotagonist 8y ago

I found using this, with an isolation setting for specific domains, to be a better option: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-con... An isolation policy will let you treat subdomain different from main domain. So I can use mail.google.com and still always be logged in, while a search from address bar or elsewhere will open in a temporary container that lasts only as long as the browser tab. The persistent "Google" container I have has domains mail.google.com, accounts.google.com, and myaccount.google.com.. everything else loads in temporary containers. Combine with this to remove the link stubs on SERP so you're not sending back click data if there's a shadow profile based on IP and browser metrics.. so shadow profile only knows what you searched and not necessarily what you clicked, and its cleaner for container assignment when opening links in new tabs because there's no brief hop to the same temp container google search loads in before going on to a separate temporary container for the target site: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-search-link-fix/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-search...