5 ms·

More details here[0], but in short, they'll "block them" by deleting cookies and site data of redirect trackers every 24h, preventing long term profile building

• godzillabrennus 6y ago
  Those fixes still have to resolve the url. The best fix is using duck.com and getting off Google search.
  • ubercow13 6y ago
    Isn't is possible to resolve the URL locally? It looks like it's just part of the redirect URL in the example given above
    • ffpip 6y ago
      If you use uBlock Origin , go to My Filters and add this https://pastebin.com/M6Jah286 https://pastebin.com/M6Jah286
      • llacb47 6y ago
        That will probably break google maps and many other things. Just add this: google.*##+js(set, rwt, noopFunc)
        • ffpip 6y ago
          Hmmm.. I've been using Google Maps with that filter for over 6 months. What is breaking/supposed to break? I might have to remove the filters from all my machines.
          • llacb47 6y ago
            I would just be cautious defusing event listeners on the entire google.com, better to make filters specific when possible.
    • davidjade 6y ago
      I use this extension. It resolves the redirect locally. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/skip-redirect/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/skip-redirect...
  • rasz 6y ago
    real url is right in the tracking one ..... AhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSunday&usg=AOvVaw3AEEL2UuDK8DJPu1wtWera
• mataug 6y ago
  Deleting redirect cookies is a wonderful step forward in improving privacy. I'm now concerned that companies would attempt to circumvent this by profiling users via fingerprinting through canvas, screen resolution, user agent and other means. I wonder how such profiling can be minimized / eliminated ?
  • mey 6y ago
    Fingerprinting is already happening
  • floatingatoll 6y ago
    As of January [1], it looks like Firefox enabled fingerprinting protection by default. Expert users may have overridden settings in various ways that could prevent those protections from being active. To verify, at Preferences > Privacy > Tracking Protection (about:preferences#privacy), make sure you've selected an option that includes Fingerprinting protection. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/how-to-block-fingerprinting-with-firefox/ https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/how-to-block-fingerprinting...
    • draebek 6y ago
      Note that I think this blocking is done not by detecting a site doing it, but instead by using block lists: Firefox has a list of sites where third-party resources, including JS that would do canvas fingerprinting, will be blocked. As I understand it, this is different from the various "resistFingerprinting" ("RFP") settings in about:config, which will work on every site (and are notorious for breaking things). Ditto CanvasBlocker, which AFAIK runs on every site. I got this info from one of the links in the informative post you cited: https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2020/01/07/firefox-72-fingerprinting/ https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2020/01/07/firefox-72-fing...
      • floatingatoll 6y ago
        Yeah, I definitely wouldn’t enable resistFingerprinting for anyone I’m responsible for providing tech support to! If y’all want to experiment with it, go ahead, but be prepared to be angry at your browser and/or websites as things mysteriously break without explanation.
• varenc 6y ago
  For Chrome and Safari users, Google doesn’t even need to do link redirection. Chrome supports the “ping” attribute on <a> links which basically tells the browser to make an asynchronous logging request in the background when the user clicks a link. On Firefox, Google has to keep using redirects. https://caniuse.com/#search=Ping https://caniuse.com/#search=Ping The official name for this spec is “hyperlinking auditing”...
  • gsnedders 6y ago
    For all browsers they could get rid of redirects and just use JS, if they wanted, and that's much harder to block.