4 ms·

Pi-hole wont protect you here, they will send the entire page, ads and all as an encrypted binary blob. Decrypting it is illegal, and since the data is coming f

Pi-hole wont protect you here, they will send the entire page, ads and all as an encrypted binary blob. Decrypting it is illegal, and since the data is coming from a single source Pi-hole can't block it. Pi-hole (and ad-blocking) days are numbered. Hopefully that day is further out than I dread.

bruce343434 5y ago
Decryption is illegal? Lol what?
- adkadskhj 5y ago
  I think they're implying DRM laws associated with the data-streaming.
  - bruce343434 5y ago
    I have faith that that's only a matter of time before somebody makes a patch that just does the decryption without fuss.
bozzcl 5y ago
Wait, how is decrypting the WASM blob illegal?
- asciimov 5y ago
  I should have chosen my words more carefully, but the blobs with ads will have some sort of DRM on them, which is technically illegal to decrypt and cut out.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    Removing DRM on something you own for personal use is perfectly legal.
    - asciimov 5y ago
      You don't own the Google Docs service, nor will you own any webpage you are served.
    - mcherm 5y ago
      > Removing DRM on something you own for personal use is perfectly legal. Perhaps some places. In the US, it is perfectly legal to "violate" copyright restrictions for purposes like fair use. But if the data is protected by any kind of security, it is a felony to bypass that security (even for fully legal purposes).[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...
      - andrewprock 5y ago
        What does security mean when there is no ad unless it is shepherded out of the blob? Once it's out of the blob, there is no security to bypass.
  - ko27 5y ago
    I fail to see how DRM is related to WASM
  - bozzcl 5y ago
    Seems the choice would be not to execute the DRM-protected blobs at all.
e3bc54b2 5y ago
When ad blocking on web becomes impossible/nonviable, I will retreat from using it, as I have retreated from using most popular sites, unless absolutely. I already don't have a TV, don't have any news apps on my phone, don't have any newspaper subscription, and I find that all the important news find their way to me no problem. I will add large degree of WWW to it and be mostly fine.
dahfizz 5y ago
Its already possible to have server side rendering bake in ads on web pages, but just about nobody does it. I think the percent of people who know about pi-Hole vs the cost of server side rendering will always make client-side rendering the optimal choice for the people running the websites. They can block adblocking browser extensions, and that will be enough for them.
- ehnto 5y ago
  That's because the ad networks require a level of validation of their views that they prefer to have control over with javascript snippets or pixels. But it's technically a bit different, since an ad-blocker could still block those baked in advertisements while it's traditional web technology. If it's a binary blob rendered with canvas, that won't be true anymore, which I think was what the parent comment was getting at.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    > If it's a binary blob rendered with canvas, that won't be true anymore. The request for the ads will either happen server side or client side. If it happens client side, it can be blocked at the network level by the pihole regardless of whether a blob or js script is making the request. The request happening server side is unlikely per my previous comment.
    - ehnto 5y ago
      Your previous comment doesn't explain a reason why it would be unlikely, just that it isn't. The reason it's currently unlikely is because ad-networks need to validate their views. Because you can ad-block on HTML alone, it isn't worth it to risk webmasters falsifying serverside views in order to try and get around ad-blockers because it wouldn't work. But add the ability to get around ad-blockers entirely and it becomes worth it to solve for server-side view validation. This is the landscape as I see it: HTML, ads loaded by user network: Can be blocked at network or in HTML. Binary blob, ads loaded by user network: Can be blocked at network level Serverside ads, HTML : Can be blocked by removing the ads in the HTML, and ad-networks don't like it because their views can't be validated and they could be scammed by webmasters. Serverside ads, binary blob: Can not be blocked by network or by hiding things in the HTML, ad-networks and webmasters would want this because they can get around ad-blockers, but will need to solve view validation, the tradeoff becomes worth it.
nonameiguess 5y ago
It has to be decrypted at some point to be viewable, so if you have system administrator access to the OS and device your browser is running on, someone will figure out how to identify which pixels and which audio bits are ads and block them from making it to the frame buffer (and whatever the equivalent is for a sound card). Where there's a will there's a way. There has just not been a need for that yet. It's just an arms race, and the makers of uBlock Origin will need to level up and figure out how to do some serious computer vision and heuristic anomaly detection.

bruce343434 5y ago

Decryption is illegal? Lol what?

adkadskhj 5y ago
I think they're implying DRM laws associated with the data-streaming.
- bruce343434 5y ago
  I have faith that that's only a matter of time before somebody makes a patch that just does the decryption without fuss.

bozzcl 5y ago

Wait, how is decrypting the WASM blob illegal?

asciimov 5y ago
I should have chosen my words more carefully, but the blobs with ads will have some sort of DRM on them, which is technically illegal to decrypt and cut out.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  Removing DRM on something you own for personal use is perfectly legal.
  - asciimov 5y ago
    You don't own the Google Docs service, nor will you own any webpage you are served.
  - mcherm 5y ago
    > Removing DRM on something you own for personal use is perfectly legal. Perhaps some places. In the US, it is perfectly legal to "violate" copyright restrictions for purposes like fair use. But if the data is protected by any kind of security, it is a felony to bypass that security (even for fully legal purposes).[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...
    - andrewprock 5y ago
      What does security mean when there is no ad unless it is shepherded out of the blob? Once it's out of the blob, there is no security to bypass.
- ko27 5y ago
  I fail to see how DRM is related to WASM
- bozzcl 5y ago
  Seems the choice would be not to execute the DRM-protected blobs at all.

e3bc54b2 5y ago

When ad blocking on web becomes impossible/nonviable, I will retreat from using it, as I have retreated from using most popular sites, unless absolutely. I already don't have a TV, don't have any news apps on my phone, don't have any newspaper subscription, and I find that all the important news find their way to me no problem. I will add large degree of WWW to it and be mostly fine.

dahfizz 5y ago

Its already possible to have server side rendering bake in ads on web pages, but just about nobody does it. I think the percent of people who know about pi-Hole vs the cost of server side rendering will always make client-side rendering the optimal choice for the people running the websites. They can block adblocking browser extensions, and that will be enough for them.

ehnto 5y ago
That's because the ad networks require a level of validation of their views that they prefer to have control over with javascript snippets or pixels. But it's technically a bit different, since an ad-blocker could still block those baked in advertisements while it's traditional web technology. If it's a binary blob rendered with canvas, that won't be true anymore, which I think was what the parent comment was getting at.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  > If it's a binary blob rendered with canvas, that won't be true anymore. The request for the ads will either happen server side or client side. If it happens client side, it can be blocked at the network level by the pihole regardless of whether a blob or js script is making the request. The request happening server side is unlikely per my previous comment.
  - ehnto 5y ago
    Your previous comment doesn't explain a reason why it would be unlikely, just that it isn't. The reason it's currently unlikely is because ad-networks need to validate their views. Because you can ad-block on HTML alone, it isn't worth it to risk webmasters falsifying serverside views in order to try and get around ad-blockers because it wouldn't work. But add the ability to get around ad-blockers entirely and it becomes worth it to solve for server-side view validation. This is the landscape as I see it: HTML, ads loaded by user network: Can be blocked at network or in HTML. Binary blob, ads loaded by user network: Can be blocked at network level Serverside ads, HTML : Can be blocked by removing the ads in the HTML, and ad-networks don't like it because their views can't be validated and they could be scammed by webmasters. Serverside ads, binary blob: Can not be blocked by network or by hiding things in the HTML, ad-networks and webmasters would want this because they can get around ad-blockers, but will need to solve view validation, the tradeoff becomes worth it.

nonameiguess 5y ago

It has to be decrypted at some point to be viewable, so if you have system administrator access to the OS and device your browser is running on, someone will figure out how to identify which pixels and which audio bits are ads and block them from making it to the frame buffer (and whatever the equivalent is for a sound card). Where there's a will there's a way. There has just not been a need for that yet. It's just an arms race, and the makers of uBlock Origin will need to level up and figure out how to do some serious computer vision and heuristic anomaly detection.