4 ms·

And Chrome won't allow the extension block lists to include regexps/wildcards, they all have to be FQDNs? It seems reasonable to require a static list for priv

And Chrome won't allow the extension block lists to include regexps/wildcards, they all have to be FQDNs? It seems reasonable to require a static list for privacy reasons. But not supporting pattern matching rules would seem to be an explicit attempt to stop ad blockers.

xdennis 5y ago
> It seems reasonable to require a static list for privacy reasons. It's rich to cite privacy reasons for not allowing the blocking of ad sites whose goal is to spy on you.
- staunch 5y ago
  The privacy advantage is not giving extensions access to what domains you are browsing. The extension declares a static list but doesn't know what did/did not match. Because if the extension knows what URLs you're accessing, and can send that data somewhere, that's a major privacy concern. So this makes sense and seems good for privacy. But if it breaks uBlock Origin significantly, that seems like a very bad thing.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    They aren't removing the capability to monitor browsing.
  - hibbelig 5y ago
    Ad sites know which urls I’m accessing, too. Google should prohibit those, too.
  - db48x 5y ago
    It’s a good theory, but it will still be possible to get an event for every single item that gets loaded. All they removed was the ability to block individual loads in that event. It is still entirely possible to collect that list of urls and snitch on the user.
tyingq 5y ago
The block list rules can have regexes, yes: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/declarativeNetRequest/ https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/decla... I don't personally believe that solves anything. Domain names are cheap. If I don't want my ad to be blocked, I can just rotate through lots of them. Google has responded to some pressure by upping the max number of rules and allowing some amount of dynamically defined rules.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

xdennis 5y ago

> It seems reasonable to require a static list for privacy reasons. It's rich to cite privacy reasons for not allowing the blocking of ad sites whose goal is to spy on you.

staunch 5y ago
The privacy advantage is not giving extensions access to what domains you are browsing. The extension declares a static list but doesn't know what did/did not match. Because if the extension knows what URLs you're accessing, and can send that data somewhere, that's a major privacy concern. So this makes sense and seems good for privacy. But if it breaks uBlock Origin significantly, that seems like a very bad thing.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  They aren't removing the capability to monitor browsing.
- hibbelig 5y ago
  Ad sites know which urls I’m accessing, too. Google should prohibit those, too.
- db48x 5y ago
  It’s a good theory, but it will still be possible to get an event for every single item that gets loaded. All they removed was the ability to block individual loads in that event. It is still entirely possible to collect that list of urls and snitch on the user.

tyingq 5y ago

The block list rules can have regexes, yes: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/declarativeNetRequest/ https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/decla... I don't personally believe that solves anything. Domain names are cheap. If I don't want my ad to be blocked, I can just rotate through lots of them. Google has responded to some pressure by upping the max number of rules and allowing some amount of dynamically defined rules.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]