7 ms·

Blocking Google and Facebook using Ad Block Plus and Ghostery

55 points by maus80 13y ago

dfc 13y ago
In my experience Adblock Plus, NoScript and RequestPolicy allow much more control than Adblock Plus and Ghostery. Adblock is even easier to use if you install the Element Hider Helper.
- xenophonf 13y ago
  RequestPolicy is pretty awesome. I've switched to Adblock Edge, which hopefully protects me better than Adblock Plus. Unfortunately, the more I delve into web privacy, the more I think that non-technical users are screwed. How on earth are mere mortals supposed to protect themselves when someone skilled in the art has a difficult time getting web sites to work in a privacy-maximal fashion?
  - djent 13y ago
    I had to install Adblock on my mother's laptop after she visited a webpage with a malicious advertisement. I went ahead and installed HTTPS Everywhere and Ghostery while I was at it. Non-technical users are completely up the creek without a paddle.
  - newman314 13y ago
    The combination of RequestPolicy, Ghostery, HTTPS Everywhere and Adblock Plus breaks formatting The Verge for me. I have yet to find a solution. Looking at the RequestPolicy log does not present an immediately obvious solution.
- mutemule 13y ago
  I honestly don't understand why RequestPolicy doesn't get more love from the pro-privacy crowd. It does exactly what they want: prevents sites from issuing HTTP requests to other sites. I once used a rather ambitious collection of addons, and I've since reduced it to just NoScript and RequestPolicy. And NoScript actually allows Javascript everywhere; it just has the XSS filter enabled. As a result, the vast majority of websites (with a categorical exception, below) work without any fiddling, and I don't see any third-party content at all: advertisements, share/like/+1 buttons, etc. My only complaint about RequestPolicy is its lack of wildcard domain matching. I'd love to allow access from all sites to 'x.cloudfront.net', but that's not possible in the current version. (Rumour is that this is being fixed, and while I can confirm that wildcards are supported in the alpha version, it's definitely not ready for real-world usage yet.) Unfortunately, this means that some sites just don't work right; eg. 'x.blogspot.ca' always renders oddly, because they all pull from 'blogblog.com' and 'blogger.com'.
paulgb 13y ago
It surprises me that more people don't just block third-party cookies. No need to maintain blacklists that way. Sure, you still see ads, but it keeps tracking at bay.
- radley 13y ago
  Because I need cookies for all my logins and subscriptions. Ads I don't need and take up a lot of screen space.
  - Encosia 13y ago
    third-party cookies are rarely necessary for logins (typically just when logging in with oAuth providers like Facebook and Twitter).
- Terretta 13y ago
  I block third party cookies, Ghostery, and block Flash. I've even opted out on the various ad tracking opt out aggregators. I still get shown ads correlating to other sites I've visited, searches I've done, or emails I've received on Gmail. I searched for Niles and Russound multi-room audio one Friday last summer, and HTD.com (Home Theater Direct) has been showing me whole house amps everywhere I go ever since. The third party cookie block doesn't seem to help much any more.
- Pacabel 13y ago
  That's a pretty bold claim to make. If third-party scripts or images are still being requested, then what prevents a site- and/or page-specific identifier from being included in the URLs of those assets? And what then prevents those site IDs, page IDs, the IP address you used to make the requests, your user agent's User-Agent string, the Referer header values, and other identifying information from being collected and stored? What prevents them from them from then tying this information together in a way that tracks you and your browsing behavior? Keep in mind that cookies of any type are not at all necessary for such tracking to occur. The only way to truly avoid that kind of tracking is to not make any such requests in the first place.
unlimited_power 13y ago
http://www.areweprivateyet.com/ http://www.areweprivateyet.com/
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  Y'know, something more than a naked link is going to be just a smidge more useful and informative: AreWePrivateYet recreates Stanford University's Tracking the Trackers: Self-Help Tools study on a continuous basis in a reproducible way. The above chart compares the level of protection provided by the different privacy extensions across various metrics.
  - aj 13y ago
    It is also worth mentioning that http://www.areweprivateyet.com/ http://www.areweprivateyet.com/ is created and maintained by Evidon, the makers of Ghostery (and unfortunately, they have no placed any obvious disclaimer except the footer mention and the top right ghostery logo which is not entirely sufficient imo
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
radley 13y ago
Check out Adblock Edge. They're a branch the last version of Adblock Plus before ABP whitelisted everything Google. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/
- dfc 13y ago
  Is not needing to uncheck the box that says "allow non-intrusive ads" the only thing adblock edge has to offer?
  - radley 13y ago
    Not by my experience. I also use Element Hiding Helper and found many Google-based elements (such as YouTube sponsored videos) would still be visible using ABP. When I switched to ABE, my filters worked as expected.
    - dfc 13y ago
      I dont even know what YT sponsored videos are. I am always shocked when I see ads before/after a video on a friends computer. Did you have a crappy blockilist subscription with ABP?
double051 13y ago
Ghostery is fantastic after you've set everything to get blocked automatically, but it's noisy out of the box (you have to really go through every setting to get it just right), and many websites simply break if you block some external scripts from loading.
sweedy 13y ago
Here comes the next story where the writer makes no difference between adbloc Plus (https://adblockplus.org https://adblockplus.org) and Adblock (https://getadblock.com https://getadblock.com)
ladzoppelin 13y ago
Does anyone know how Bluhell Firewall (Firefox) does against trackers?
rmrfrmrf 13y ago
The last time I checked out Ghostery, it phoned home by design. Is this still the case?
- username223 13y ago
  Probably. They're pretty open about their business model -- gather data about where ads get served, and sell that to the people buying those ads. As long as a minority of people use Ghostery, they can keep making money. The only real way to control tracking is via an HTTP proxy that blocks connections to known bad actors (e.g. Google). Keeping an up-to-date list of miscreants is a pain, but doable. Ghostery does this for you, for a price.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Silhouette 13y ago
  From https://www.ghostery.com/privacy https://www.ghostery.com/privacy: "Ghostery does not collect any data by default. You may choose to send us data by enabling the Ghostrank™ feature."
r0h1n 13y ago
Adding a couple of solutions to the bucket. The first is of course Disconnect [0], which does everything Ghostery does and more, minus their "compromised" business model - The second is "Self-Destructing Cookies" [1], a browser add-on that deletes cookies as soon as a tab is closed. Those sites whose cookies you do not want deleted (like, say, HN), you can add to a whitelist. And yes, use AdBlock Edge instead of AdBlock Plus. [0] https://disconnect.me/ https://disconnect.me/ [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/self-destructing-cookies/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/self-destruct...
- dfc 13y ago
  Disconnect is an "of course"? I looked at their issues page and saw these two open requests that are basic requirements for me: "Feature: option to manage Whitelist/Blacklist #272 -- The whitelist is being stored in JSON format in the FF prefs.js, this is really hard to manage manually. I'd like a basic dialog for Whitelist/Blacklist management of sites." "Element hiding in Firefox #237 -- Implemented?" Scanning the rest of the bugs it seems like they do a bad job of doing what HTTPS-Everywhere does extremely well and the graph of behavior-tracking websites looked like a crappy version of LightBeam.
  - r0h1n 13y ago
    I personally don't use whitelisting, but yes, the lack of an element hiding element is felt. Just did a quick Google search and discovered it might be possible to use the "Element Hiding Helper" plugin with Adblock Edge: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/versions/?page=1#version-2.0.2 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/...
- joveian 13y ago
  I like Ghostery so far, but the Self-Destructing Cookies add-on looks excellent, thanks :). I just wish that it (and Ghostery) would not make obnoxious and useless notifications by default. Easy enough to change, though...
parag_c_mehta 13y ago
I should also point out that if you are serious about tracking, you should probably look into disabling Sync and "Signed In" feature of chrome. Though there is no proof yet, but theoretically Chrome update can start tracking based on logged in user.
SixSigma 13y ago
my armoury * Facebook disconnect. * Google disconnect. * Ghostery * Privoxy * Self Destructing Cookies * No-Script I wouldn't be so concerned about the ads themselves if they didn't flash, jump about, get in the way of text, harvest my likes, cross harvest my interests, get hijacked and infect my machine, steal my battery life by being animated etc. etc.
thisiswrong 13y ago
"Allow for some non-intrusive advertising" This is what scared me about Add Block by default on browsers. Essentially what's happening is the monopolies (Google & FB) get to keep their profitable business models while all small time content publishers get stripped of revenue. WTF !? Where's the Anti trust regulation? You'd think they were conspiring to kill independent content creation. Or are they?
- Cthulhu_ 13y ago
  I... think it's kinda weird, yelling for 'anti trust regulation' when you're blocking ads / denying people their income.
  - null_ptr 13y ago
    What if I choose browse the web with Lynx (text-only browser, no JavaScript). Am I still denying people their income? What if I watch TV and go to the bathroom during commercial breaks, am I denying those people's income too?
- joveian 13y ago
  I use ABP + Ghostery and most Google ads do not qualify as unobtrusive (I don't use FB). I can't recall having seen a Google ad since installing ABP probably not too long after the new policy (I installed Ghostery a few months later IIRC). E.g. the ads at the top of searches are gone, which is great for me since I use redshift and can never tell where the ads stop and the results begin when it is shifting (it is also nice to not need to scroll down to see actual results, although the re-search as text is entered into the search box thing annoyed me enough that I switched to DDG). For people who installed ABP after the option was added it is well documented. I think ABP came up with a good list that actually indicates when ads have minimal negative impact. Does following those rules actually harm independent content creation? Before installing ad blocking it was not at all infequent for me to not look at websites at all because the ads were too obnoxious. OTOH, when I find an article valuable I usually look around more at what the site has to offer and would at least see the less obtrusive ads at that point even if I missed them earlier.
TuxLyn 13y ago
Unfortunatly, none of this will protect you from EverCookies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evercookie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evercookie). The only way possible right now is to disable firefox history/cookies/javascript and use private mode, and even then its not 100%. But at that point you wont be able to use most of the sites. This means even if you use TOR or VPN, you can still be tracked. There is one plugin in beta stage called NeverCookies beta (https://github.com/sensepost/neverevercookie https://github.com/sensepost/neverevercookie) you can also find xpi on softpedia site. NeverCookie does not have any options in beta version. But there is another plugin no one mantioned called "Random Agent Spoofer" (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/random-agent-spoofer/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/random-agent-...) It protects your ETag, X-Forward-For and more.
Aoyagi 13y ago
I don't know, I've used Ghostery and ABP for a while and despite claims of lack of trust, I've had no issues with them. They both allow blocking everything, the options aren't exactly hidden in a locked closet guarded by a leopard. But I don't get my hopes too high, I know that there are still other ways to track users and I feel it's a hopeless fight (without going to extremes like ABP+Ghostery+noscript+TOR+no cookies+never using the same device twice). But hey, if it annoys them enough to pay for being whitelisted by default on some platforms, it's worth the fight for me.
boards2x 13y ago
Ghostery is problematic, I've stopped using their serivce (now using disconnect.me. Some sources say that Evidon, the company owning Ghostery, plays a dual role in the online advertising industry. Ghostery blocks sites from gathering personal information. But it does have an opt-in feature named GhostRank that can be checked to "support" them. GhostRank takes note of ads encountered and blocked, and sends that information, though anonymously, back to advertisers so they can better formulate their ads to avoid being blocked.[4]
mp3geek 13y ago
Use Fanboy-Social List, Ghostery isn't needed. /Disclaimer; Author.
- JetSpiegel 13y ago
  Isn't it called the AntiSocial list? Whatever the name, it's a great feature. Thanks!
notastartup 13y ago
it’s is made by an advertising company called Evidon … it is a Web tracking blocker that actually helps the ad industry doesn't that defeat the whole product of Ghostery? I was eager to install it but after reading that I'm not so sure. What are they exactly doing?
someguy2 13y ago
don't forget about flash cookies, a.k.a LSO's or SuperCookies. BetterPrivacy works well mitigating that. i'd also recommend 'Secret Agent' - "Continuously Randomizes your Firefox/SeaMonkey HTTP User Agent, to Suppress Device Fingerprinting, and Resist Web Tracking. Also Prevents eTag Tracking.": https://www.dephormation.org.uk/index.php?page=81 https://www.dephormation.org.uk/index.php?page=81 hosts file is another option: http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt
616c 13y ago
To expound upon someguy2's recommendation below, I have since moved on my Arch Linux laptop after reading a dev's blog post[0] to using hostsblock to block a lot of known domains to redirect to localhost. That, in conjunction with dnsmasq and kwakd (a ~400 LOC web server in C that only returns <html></html>)[2] for all requests makes me worry a lot less. I also use disconnect.me (after discovering the motivation behind Ghostery is just to sell info back to marketers). My only real issue is that kwakd is clearly choking on certain sites (namely Google, which I just back to permanent NoScript blockage) with some of the weirder stuff it does with asynchronous JS calls. Blocking Google completely as a result makes my web experience much, much faster and cleaner. [0] http://jasonwryan.com/blog/2013/12/28/hostsblock/ http://jasonwryan.com/blog/2013/12/28/hostsblock/ [1] http://gaenserich.github.io/hostsblock/ http://gaenserich.github.io/hostsblock/ [2] https://code.google.com/p/kwakd https://code.google.com/p/kwakd
metastart 13y ago
Try the Epic Privacy Browser -- a chromium based browser that rips out all google calls/services and protects your privacy -- it blocks ads and trackers and philosophically doesn't send your browsing through its servers nor collects any data unlike many of the other privacy addons mentioned.
nighthawk24 13y ago
http://prism-break.org/en/ http://prism-break.org/en/ Opt out of global data surveillance programs like PRISM, XKeyscore and Tempora.

55 points by maus80 13y ago

dfc 13y ago

In my experience Adblock Plus, NoScript and RequestPolicy allow much more control than Adblock Plus and Ghostery. Adblock is even easier to use if you install the Element Hider Helper.

xenophonf 13y ago
RequestPolicy is pretty awesome. I've switched to Adblock Edge, which hopefully protects me better than Adblock Plus. Unfortunately, the more I delve into web privacy, the more I think that non-technical users are screwed. How on earth are mere mortals supposed to protect themselves when someone skilled in the art has a difficult time getting web sites to work in a privacy-maximal fashion?
- djent 13y ago
  I had to install Adblock on my mother's laptop after she visited a webpage with a malicious advertisement. I went ahead and installed HTTPS Everywhere and Ghostery while I was at it. Non-technical users are completely up the creek without a paddle.
- newman314 13y ago
  The combination of RequestPolicy, Ghostery, HTTPS Everywhere and Adblock Plus breaks formatting The Verge for me. I have yet to find a solution. Looking at the RequestPolicy log does not present an immediately obvious solution.
mutemule 13y ago
I honestly don't understand why RequestPolicy doesn't get more love from the pro-privacy crowd. It does exactly what they want: prevents sites from issuing HTTP requests to other sites. I once used a rather ambitious collection of addons, and I've since reduced it to just NoScript and RequestPolicy. And NoScript actually allows Javascript everywhere; it just has the XSS filter enabled. As a result, the vast majority of websites (with a categorical exception, below) work without any fiddling, and I don't see any third-party content at all: advertisements, share/like/+1 buttons, etc. My only complaint about RequestPolicy is its lack of wildcard domain matching. I'd love to allow access from all sites to 'x.cloudfront.net', but that's not possible in the current version. (Rumour is that this is being fixed, and while I can confirm that wildcards are supported in the alpha version, it's definitely not ready for real-world usage yet.) Unfortunately, this means that some sites just don't work right; eg. 'x.blogspot.ca' always renders oddly, because they all pull from 'blogblog.com' and 'blogger.com'.

paulgb 13y ago

It surprises me that more people don't just block third-party cookies. No need to maintain blacklists that way. Sure, you still see ads, but it keeps tracking at bay.

radley 13y ago
Because I need cookies for all my logins and subscriptions. Ads I don't need and take up a lot of screen space.
- Encosia 13y ago
  third-party cookies are rarely necessary for logins (typically just when logging in with oAuth providers like Facebook and Twitter).
Terretta 13y ago
I block third party cookies, Ghostery, and block Flash. I've even opted out on the various ad tracking opt out aggregators. I still get shown ads correlating to other sites I've visited, searches I've done, or emails I've received on Gmail. I searched for Niles and Russound multi-room audio one Friday last summer, and HTD.com (Home Theater Direct) has been showing me whole house amps everywhere I go ever since. The third party cookie block doesn't seem to help much any more.
Pacabel 13y ago
That's a pretty bold claim to make. If third-party scripts or images are still being requested, then what prevents a site- and/or page-specific identifier from being included in the URLs of those assets? And what then prevents those site IDs, page IDs, the IP address you used to make the requests, your user agent's User-Agent string, the Referer header values, and other identifying information from being collected and stored? What prevents them from them from then tying this information together in a way that tracks you and your browsing behavior? Keep in mind that cookies of any type are not at all necessary for such tracking to occur. The only way to truly avoid that kind of tracking is to not make any such requests in the first place.

unlimited_power 13y ago

http://www.areweprivateyet.com/ http://www.areweprivateyet.com/

dredmorbius 13y ago
Y'know, something more than a naked link is going to be just a smidge more useful and informative: AreWePrivateYet recreates Stanford University's Tracking the Trackers: Self-Help Tools study on a continuous basis in a reproducible way. The above chart compares the level of protection provided by the different privacy extensions across various metrics.
- aj 13y ago
  It is also worth mentioning that http://www.areweprivateyet.com/ http://www.areweprivateyet.com/ is created and maintained by Evidon, the makers of Ghostery (and unfortunately, they have no placed any obvious disclaimer except the footer mention and the top right ghostery logo which is not entirely sufficient imo

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

radley 13y ago

Check out Adblock Edge. They're a branch the last version of Adblock Plus before ABP whitelisted everything Google. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/

dfc 13y ago
Is not needing to uncheck the box that says "allow non-intrusive ads" the only thing adblock edge has to offer?
- radley 13y ago
  Not by my experience. I also use Element Hiding Helper and found many Google-based elements (such as YouTube sponsored videos) would still be visible using ABP. When I switched to ABE, my filters worked as expected.
  - dfc 13y ago
    I dont even know what YT sponsored videos are. I am always shocked when I see ads before/after a video on a friends computer. Did you have a crappy blockilist subscription with ABP?

double051 13y ago

Ghostery is fantastic after you've set everything to get blocked automatically, but it's noisy out of the box (you have to really go through every setting to get it just right), and many websites simply break if you block some external scripts from loading.

sweedy 13y ago

Here comes the next story where the writer makes no difference between adbloc Plus (https://adblockplus.org https://adblockplus.org) and Adblock (https://getadblock.com https://getadblock.com)

ladzoppelin 13y ago

Does anyone know how Bluhell Firewall (Firefox) does against trackers?

rmrfrmrf 13y ago

The last time I checked out Ghostery, it phoned home by design. Is this still the case?

username223 13y ago
Probably. They're pretty open about their business model -- gather data about where ads get served, and sell that to the people buying those ads. As long as a minority of people use Ghostery, they can keep making money. The only real way to control tracking is via an HTTP proxy that blocks connections to known bad actors (e.g. Google). Keeping an up-to-date list of miscreants is a pain, but doable. Ghostery does this for you, for a price.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Silhouette 13y ago
From https://www.ghostery.com/privacy https://www.ghostery.com/privacy: "Ghostery does not collect any data by default. You may choose to send us data by enabling the Ghostrank™ feature."

r0h1n 13y ago

Adding a couple of solutions to the bucket. The first is of course Disconnect [0], which does everything Ghostery does and more, minus their "compromised" business model - The second is "Self-Destructing Cookies" [1], a browser add-on that deletes cookies as soon as a tab is closed. Those sites whose cookies you do not want deleted (like, say, HN), you can add to a whitelist. And yes, use AdBlock Edge instead of AdBlock Plus. [0] https://disconnect.me/ https://disconnect.me/ [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/self-destructing-cookies/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/self-destruct...

dfc 13y ago
Disconnect is an "of course"? I looked at their issues page and saw these two open requests that are basic requirements for me: "Feature: option to manage Whitelist/Blacklist #272 -- The whitelist is being stored in JSON format in the FF prefs.js, this is really hard to manage manually. I'd like a basic dialog for Whitelist/Blacklist management of sites." "Element hiding in Firefox #237 -- Implemented?" Scanning the rest of the bugs it seems like they do a bad job of doing what HTTPS-Everywhere does extremely well and the graph of behavior-tracking websites looked like a crappy version of LightBeam.
- r0h1n 13y ago
  I personally don't use whitelisting, but yes, the lack of an element hiding element is felt. Just did a quick Google search and discovered it might be possible to use the "Element Hiding Helper" plugin with Adblock Edge: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/versions/?page=1#version-2.0.2 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/...
joveian 13y ago
I like Ghostery so far, but the Self-Destructing Cookies add-on looks excellent, thanks :). I just wish that it (and Ghostery) would not make obnoxious and useless notifications by default. Easy enough to change, though...

parag_c_mehta 13y ago

I should also point out that if you are serious about tracking, you should probably look into disabling Sync and "Signed In" feature of chrome. Though there is no proof yet, but theoretically Chrome update can start tracking based on logged in user.

SixSigma 13y ago

my armoury * Facebook disconnect. * Google disconnect. * Ghostery * Privoxy * Self Destructing Cookies * No-Script I wouldn't be so concerned about the ads themselves if they didn't flash, jump about, get in the way of text, harvest my likes, cross harvest my interests, get hijacked and infect my machine, steal my battery life by being animated etc. etc.

thisiswrong 13y ago

"Allow for some non-intrusive advertising" This is what scared me about Add Block by default on browsers. Essentially what's happening is the monopolies (Google & FB) get to keep their profitable business models while all small time content publishers get stripped of revenue. WTF !? Where's the Anti trust regulation? You'd think they were conspiring to kill independent content creation. Or are they?

Cthulhu_ 13y ago
I... think it's kinda weird, yelling for 'anti trust regulation' when you're blocking ads / denying people their income.
- null_ptr 13y ago
  What if I choose browse the web with Lynx (text-only browser, no JavaScript). Am I still denying people their income? What if I watch TV and go to the bathroom during commercial breaks, am I denying those people's income too?
joveian 13y ago
I use ABP + Ghostery and most Google ads do not qualify as unobtrusive (I don't use FB). I can't recall having seen a Google ad since installing ABP probably not too long after the new policy (I installed Ghostery a few months later IIRC). E.g. the ads at the top of searches are gone, which is great for me since I use redshift and can never tell where the ads stop and the results begin when it is shifting (it is also nice to not need to scroll down to see actual results, although the re-search as text is entered into the search box thing annoyed me enough that I switched to DDG). For people who installed ABP after the option was added it is well documented. I think ABP came up with a good list that actually indicates when ads have minimal negative impact. Does following those rules actually harm independent content creation? Before installing ad blocking it was not at all infequent for me to not look at websites at all because the ads were too obnoxious. OTOH, when I find an article valuable I usually look around more at what the site has to offer and would at least see the less obtrusive ads at that point even if I missed them earlier.

TuxLyn 13y ago

Unfortunatly, none of this will protect you from EverCookies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evercookie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evercookie). The only way possible right now is to disable firefox history/cookies/javascript and use private mode, and even then its not 100%. But at that point you wont be able to use most of the sites. This means even if you use TOR or VPN, you can still be tracked. There is one plugin in beta stage called NeverCookies beta (https://github.com/sensepost/neverevercookie https://github.com/sensepost/neverevercookie) you can also find xpi on softpedia site. NeverCookie does not have any options in beta version. But there is another plugin no one mantioned called "Random Agent Spoofer" (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/random-agent-spoofer/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/random-agent-...) It protects your ETag, X-Forward-For and more.

Aoyagi 13y ago

I don't know, I've used Ghostery and ABP for a while and despite claims of lack of trust, I've had no issues with them. They both allow blocking everything, the options aren't exactly hidden in a locked closet guarded by a leopard. But I don't get my hopes too high, I know that there are still other ways to track users and I feel it's a hopeless fight (without going to extremes like ABP+Ghostery+noscript+TOR+no cookies+never using the same device twice). But hey, if it annoys them enough to pay for being whitelisted by default on some platforms, it's worth the fight for me.

boards2x 13y ago

Ghostery is problematic, I've stopped using their serivce (now using disconnect.me. Some sources say that Evidon, the company owning Ghostery, plays a dual role in the online advertising industry. Ghostery blocks sites from gathering personal information. But it does have an opt-in feature named GhostRank that can be checked to "support" them. GhostRank takes note of ads encountered and blocked, and sends that information, though anonymously, back to advertisers so they can better formulate their ads to avoid being blocked.[4]

mp3geek 13y ago

Use Fanboy-Social List, Ghostery isn't needed. /Disclaimer; Author.

JetSpiegel 13y ago
Isn't it called the AntiSocial list? Whatever the name, it's a great feature. Thanks!

notastartup 13y ago

it’s is made by an advertising company called Evidon … it is a Web tracking blocker that actually helps the ad industry doesn't that defeat the whole product of Ghostery? I was eager to install it but after reading that I'm not so sure. What are they exactly doing?

someguy2 13y ago

don't forget about flash cookies, a.k.a LSO's or SuperCookies. BetterPrivacy works well mitigating that. i'd also recommend 'Secret Agent' - "Continuously Randomizes your Firefox/SeaMonkey HTTP User Agent, to Suppress Device Fingerprinting, and Resist Web Tracking. Also Prevents eTag Tracking.": https://www.dephormation.org.uk/index.php?page=81 https://www.dephormation.org.uk/index.php?page=81 hosts file is another option: http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt

616c 13y ago

To expound upon someguy2's recommendation below, I have since moved on my Arch Linux laptop after reading a dev's blog post[0] to using hostsblock to block a lot of known domains to redirect to localhost. That, in conjunction with dnsmasq and kwakd (a ~400 LOC web server in C that only returns <html></html>)[2] for all requests makes me worry a lot less. I also use disconnect.me (after discovering the motivation behind Ghostery is just to sell info back to marketers). My only real issue is that kwakd is clearly choking on certain sites (namely Google, which I just back to permanent NoScript blockage) with some of the weirder stuff it does with asynchronous JS calls. Blocking Google completely as a result makes my web experience much, much faster and cleaner. [0] http://jasonwryan.com/blog/2013/12/28/hostsblock/ http://jasonwryan.com/blog/2013/12/28/hostsblock/ [1] http://gaenserich.github.io/hostsblock/ http://gaenserich.github.io/hostsblock/ [2] https://code.google.com/p/kwakd https://code.google.com/p/kwakd

metastart 13y ago

Try the Epic Privacy Browser -- a chromium based browser that rips out all google calls/services and protects your privacy -- it blocks ads and trackers and philosophically doesn't send your browsing through its servers nor collects any data unlike many of the other privacy addons mentioned.

nighthawk24 13y ago

http://prism-break.org/en/ http://prism-break.org/en/ Opt out of global data surveillance programs like PRISM, XKeyscore and Tempora.