Firefox adds tracking protection by default

Posted Jun 5, 2019 11:30 UTC (Wed) by KaiRo (subscriber, #1987)
In reply to: Firefox adds tracking protection by default by juliank
Parent article: Firefox adds tracking protection by default

Chrome is going the other direction and removing the abilities to block trackers even for add-ons, from what I heard.

That said, please report sites to Mozilla that break with their Tracking Protection. They will add some limited exceptions to the rules to make specific sites still work (e.g. by allowing some cookies to be set session- only or similar things)

Firefox adds tracking protection by default

Posted Jun 5, 2019 15:26 UTC (Wed) by leromarinvit (subscriber, #56850) [Link] (2 responses)

I wonder why their tracking protection doesn't work more like the Temporary Containers extension: "Here's an empty session for you, yours (and yours only) to track as you please!"

Firefox adds tracking protection by default

Posted Jun 5, 2019 16:28 UTC (Wed) by KaiRo (subscriber, #1987) [Link] (1 responses)

AFAIK that's what they target for content that breaks sites if not loaded (not sure if it's implemented atm but it was at least talked about at some point). That said, loading at all is a signal and can slow pages down so they block loading where possible.

Firefox adds tracking protection by default

Posted Jun 5, 2019 19:28 UTC (Wed) by leromarinvit (subscriber, #56850) [Link]

Of course - even without cookies, they can track visits by IP address and whatever other bits of entropy they can get their hands on, in addition to causing useless traffic. So blocking known trackers is of course a good thing. But blacklists will never catch everything, so what I really meant was placing whatever escapes the filters in an empty session.

That's what I do right now with a combination of Firefox' built-in tracker blocking, uBlock Origin and Temporary Containers (and Containerise for the few sites I actually want to keep in a persistent session). That system works, but obviously it requires manual setup, so I appreciate them moving to protecting privacy better by default. Also, it does have a few rough edges here and there, mostly related to using containers in a somewhat unintended way (e.g. opening a new container, even automatically, forces the creation of a new tab).

Firefox adds tracking protection by default

Posted Jun 5, 2019 20:02 UTC (Wed) by juliank (guest, #45896) [Link] (4 responses)

I hope it works out. Its certainly less risky than privacy badger - that stuff breaks pages quite often. But I think mostly because it starts blocking requests, not just cookies.

on Privacy Badger

Posted Jun 5, 2019 20:13 UTC (Wed) by Herve5 (subscriber, #115399) [Link] (3 responses)

This remark surprises me. I have been using Privacy Badger for years (even donating to EFF), and this together with Ublock Origin.
We really must not read the same sites outside LWN ;-)

on Privacy Badger

Posted Jun 9, 2019 2:53 UTC (Sun) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link] (2 responses)

I used to do the same, but I'd rather use uMatrix's self-destructing cookie feature and whitelist the sites I actually use. Privacy Badger is explicitly designed to handwave through any 3rd party surveillance company that drops a shibboleth at the right URL.

I also don't trust the EFF as a whole any more, after learning more about them than I wanted to know. Was considering shredding my old donation letter today.

on Privacy Badger

Posted Jun 24, 2019 15:30 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (1 responses)

Hm, that was an interesting article, but it goes way over the top. e.g. describing Google et al, it says

On a fundamental level, these companies were like tapeworms—digital parasites that sunk their hooks into our networks of culture distribution and siphoned value as quickly as possible for themselves, without giving anything back to the people who produce culture.

This outright states that web search is valueless. Really? Try to do your job without it. Go on, I'll wait. (Oh obviously you have to give up your phone as well and try to work without that, too, since in addition to Google, the article *starts* by ranting against Apple.)

The ad-driven Web is grotesque, but claiming that companies like Google provide no value at all and are pure parasites is utter hyperbole which requires no actual thought whatsoever to disprove.

on Privacy Badger

Posted Jun 24, 2019 15:35 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Good grief: by the end it's using opposition to copyright-maximalist bills like SOPA and PIPA as proof that the opponent is a Silicon Valley shill. What on earth? Apparently all free software developers are shills (and probably everyone who produces or remixes copyrightable work who isn't a huge corporation's legal arm is a shill, too).