3 ms·

You do know that sites will track you without javascript or ads? As well, do you browse without cookies and images, as those extensions will not help you there?

You do know that sites will track you without javascript or ads? As well, do you browse without cookies and images, as those extensions will not help you there? And without session IDs in URIs, since you seem to want the web to return to byzantine times? > I believe the outcome will be a better business model for sites to make money Sites will make less money without use of cookies, images, and support of encoding sessions into URIs. You ARE welcome to use the web without these things, but it is going to mean you are not a customer of many entities, because your kind are vanishingly small in number. You might be interested in the Firefox section of http://crunchbang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=24722 http://crunchbang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=24722, if your serious about your privacy and security.

bloopletech 13y ago
I think a number of different issues are being conflated here. Secondly, in my ordinary web browsing, I'm not trying to avoid all tracking whatsoever - I'm much more interested in blocking the 99.9% low-hanging fruit of commercial 3rd-party tracking. If I really was paranoid / needed to prevent tracking completely, I'd use a much more sophisticated setup. Given that context, the fact that some people may be trying to embed image web bugs on a bunch of pages isn't nearly as important or interesting; AFAIK most commercial 3rd-party trackers are javascript-based these days. Same applies for straight cookies - blocking the 3rd-party javascript usually prevents these begin set in the first place. > since you seem to want the web to return to byzantine times? > without use of cookies, images, and support of encoding sessions into URIs I'm not advocating for that at all - there is a continuum between only viewing raw HTML and running every bit of 3rd-party javascript someone decided to throw into the page. My comment was bascially arguing that there _is_ a continuum, and that it is possible to block the vast majority of 3rd-party trackers, _without_ having to turn of JS completely, do anything really paranoid. My whole comment, essentially, was about _avoiding_ turning off JS etc., and still maintaining a level of control over my browsing experience. I actually develop web applications for a living, so it would be a bit silly of me to say that we shouldn't have sessions support! > > I believe the outcome will be a better business model for sites to make money What I was referring to here, is that if ads and 3rd-party tracking are blocked, then sites will have to create new revenue streams to operate with - and if that means paying directly for good content, then I look forward to supporting that business model. I think your annoyance is misplaced. I develop rails apps for a living, so I am aware of the importance of js, sessions etc. - I'm merely stating that I can have my cake (blocking 3rd-party trackers) and eat it (still use the next) too.
- thezilch 13y ago
  But the post I responded to is wrong. Blocking third party trackers does not block my hosting of the JS file; this is only discouraged for most trackers. Most trackers also have a gif-pixel option and by default (eg. quantcast) or a server-to-server option (eg. kissmetrics). I was merely pointing out your conclusions are wrong about Firefox, extensions, or HTTP headers preventing the capabilities of trackers. And again, you are very welcome to not be tracked online; that is very much within your right; you are just spreading falsehoods. Have a look at evercookie, for example.

bloopletech 13y ago

I think a number of different issues are being conflated here. Secondly, in my ordinary web browsing, I'm not trying to avoid all tracking whatsoever - I'm much more interested in blocking the 99.9% low-hanging fruit of commercial 3rd-party tracking. If I really was paranoid / needed to prevent tracking completely, I'd use a much more sophisticated setup. Given that context, the fact that some people may be trying to embed image web bugs on a bunch of pages isn't nearly as important or interesting; AFAIK most commercial 3rd-party trackers are javascript-based these days. Same applies for straight cookies - blocking the 3rd-party javascript usually prevents these begin set in the first place. > since you seem to want the web to return to byzantine times? > without use of cookies, images, and support of encoding sessions into URIs I'm not advocating for that at all - there is a continuum between only viewing raw HTML and running every bit of 3rd-party javascript someone decided to throw into the page. My comment was bascially arguing that there _is_ a continuum, and that it is possible to block the vast majority of 3rd-party trackers, _without_ having to turn of JS completely, do anything really paranoid. My whole comment, essentially, was about _avoiding_ turning off JS etc., and still maintaining a level of control over my browsing experience. I actually develop web applications for a living, so it would be a bit silly of me to say that we shouldn't have sessions support! > > I believe the outcome will be a better business model for sites to make money What I was referring to here, is that if ads and 3rd-party tracking are blocked, then sites will have to create new revenue streams to operate with - and if that means paying directly for good content, then I look forward to supporting that business model. I think your annoyance is misplaced. I develop rails apps for a living, so I am aware of the importance of js, sessions etc. - I'm merely stating that I can have my cake (blocking 3rd-party trackers) and eat it (still use the next) too.

thezilch 13y ago
But the post I responded to is wrong. Blocking third party trackers does not block my hosting of the JS file; this is only discouraged for most trackers. Most trackers also have a gif-pixel option and by default (eg. quantcast) or a server-to-server option (eg. kissmetrics). I was merely pointing out your conclusions are wrong about Firefox, extensions, or HTTP headers preventing the capabilities of trackers. And again, you are very welcome to not be tracked online; that is very much within your right; you are just spreading falsehoods. Have a look at evercookie, for example.