3 ms·
> 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 t
by 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 agoThe 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 agoThey aren't removing the capability to monitor browsing.
- hibbelig 5y agoAd sites know which urls I’m accessing, too. Google should prohibit those, too.
- db48x 5y agoIt’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.