Facebook Responds to EPIC FTC Timeline Complaint

What it has to do with privacy? by DCTech · 2012-01-09 01:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

As far as I can see, the only change is how user profile is displayed. It's a cosmetic change. There is nothing visible that wasn't visible to begin with. The only change is that events and posts are grouped together based on their dates instead of that flat style that was before. But even then the dates were visible, they just weren't grouped together.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? by ThunderBird89 · 2012-01-09 01:53 · Score: 4

And if he does? You just have to be smart with what information you enter, and what you do with it, and there, no risk at all.
Seriously, there's no real reason to hate on Facebook, at the very least, not this time. As for the users, there's no reason to hate on them at all just because they use Facebook.

--
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by DCTech · 2012-01-09 01:53 · Score: 1

Yes I do, it's a good service and there really isn't anything that compares. Especially since I have friends all over the world and travel a lot. When traveling and going to new place, it's extremely easy to find restaurants and other small businesses via Facebook. They don't often even have websites, and you wouldn't know about them anyway, but via your friends or other connections you stumble upon them. Google fails in that because not all places have websites and you don't know what to look for to begin with. And it's easy to add new friends you meet while traveling.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by sunr2007 · 2012-01-09 01:55 · Score: 2

one of Facebook's motive is to confuse users as much it can with respect to privacy. Timeline is doing that. for e.g., if u enable timeline any person on FB can see where u are born , what u did in which year n all type of activities. It helps advertisers whom FB is selling your information.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by slthytove · 2012-01-09 01:56 · Score: 2

It's a cosmetic change. There is nothing visible that wasn't visible to begin with.
Agreed. The backlash after any Facebook redesign is ridiculous. Now we have to complain to the FTC?
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 02:01 · Score: 0

So, my evidence here is third hand, as I've never used Facebook, but based on the rantings and ravings of a certain vagina possessing friend, the issue is this:
1. User creates Facebook account to talk with friends
2. User and friends post many horrible, inappropriate things on Facebook and let all their friend see them
3. User gets friend request from mother/father/teacher/grandma
4. User realizes mother/father/teacher/grandma friend request can't be rejected due to familial obligation, and can't be accepted due to horrible, inappropriate things on Facebook account
5. User deletes all the horrible, inappropriate things and accepts friend request
6. Timeline rolls out and grandma scrolls through users Timeline and sees all the horrible things that were deleted
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by DCTech · 2012-01-09 02:04 · Score: 2

Anyone could see those years and dates to begin with. They were always there. Timeline isn't helping advertisers in any way, nor is FB selling your information to them. That is their valuable asset, why would they be selling it? They run advertising system where you can somewhat target users, they're not selling information. And I've actually run a few ads on Facebook and you can't target that well, Google lets you target much more.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by DCTech · 2012-01-09 02:05 · Score: 2

Except that the last part doesn't happen as user has deleted them.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by OzPeter · 2012-01-09 02:07 · Score: 5, Funny

So you admit that you use Facebook?
I also use facebook.
And I also have 2 Macs and 2 Windows PC's on my desk where I run VMs with everything from W98 to 2008 server as well as a couple of variations of linux. I program in a host of languages doing things from websites to industrial control systems to smart phone apps. I use Yahoo messenger, and on occasion use my 3 hotmail accounts. I'll admit that my ICQ profile is probably long gone, and at one stage I did have an AOL account, but moved on to Earthlink.
So has your little, puny AC head exploded yet?

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by DCTech · 2012-01-09 02:08 · Score: 4, Informative

On the same subject actually, I really wish Slashdot would remove those flickering social buttons on the posts. It's not even the fact that they're there (which is still somewhat ridiculous, but), it's the fact that they flicker as you move mouse. Makes it really hard to concentrate on actually reading the posts.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by iB1 · 2012-01-09 02:12 · Score: 1

So, my evidence here is third hand, as I've never used Facebook, but based on the rantings and ravings of a certain vagina possessing friend
Most of us call them women...
HTH
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Nursie · 2012-01-09 02:13 · Score: 1

It will, however, make facebook worse.
Not that this should be a legal issue, but every time they make a change to the interface, it gets worse.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-01-09 02:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have every reason to hate users of Facebook who enter information about me. I may not be on Facebook, but I can still be tagged in a photo, have my name used in a "Check in" style post, have my details entered as an invitation to join Facebook (thereby linking my email address to me, the person who submitted the invitation, any picture I am tagged in without my knowledge etc).

I'm not paranoid, I just dislike the idea of my life being profiled by a private entity without my consent. I'm well aware that store / loyalty cards, CC companies etc do this; I accept that as part of the terms of service. What do I gain from Facebook?

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-01-09 02:19 · Score: 2

Seriously, there's no real reason to hate on Facebook [...]. As for the users, there's no reason to hate on them at all just because they use Facebook.
Oh well, just as there was no reason to hate aol users in the 90ies...
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 02:24 · Score: 0

And if he does? You just have to be smart with what information you enter, and what you do with it, and there, no risk at all.
you forget to be smart about which people you send friend requests to, which people send friend requests to you, which posts you read, which links to external sites you click on, which you don't click on, at which times you visit Facebook and from which device, which other sites that have Facebook tracking you visit, ...
Any action you take or don't take that they can track says something about who you are.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by fahrbot-bot · 2012-01-09 02:25 · Score: 3, Funny

Wait. I'm confused. There's privacy on Facebook? When did this happen?

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Nursie · 2012-01-09 02:26 · Score: 5, Informative

Adblock Plus - add a rule to block "http://a.fsdn.com/sd/commentshareicons.png"
Seems to have fixed it for me, they are most annoying and I can't think of a time I have ever wanted to share someone else's slashdot post on social media sites.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 02:36 · Score: 0

I hate it, but I agree.
I hate it because for a "timeline" it's hideously non-linear. It has two columns, and for no apparent reason. I mean, the old wall tended to be rather non-linear already (since it grouped similar posts), but this just multiplies that by two.
I agree, however, that it basically changes nothing about how much information is available. The only thing they've changed is how it is displayed.
It does, however, allow you to jump directly to a particular year, which is a significant change in how much trouble it is to browse the old material on someone's wall. Previously, you'd have had to click an awful lot of times to get back that far.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 02:38 · Score: 0

Oh, sure, anyone could see them, but with any reasonable amount of activity on someone's wall you'd have to click an awful lot of times to get back to activity from 2011 (less than 2 weeks ago), much less 2010 or 2009.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by AvitarX · 2012-01-09 02:42 · Score: 1

It used to get real slow to find posts more than a couple pages off the first wall page (things may have changed in 2 years though).
But I agree, stuff used to be there. Also, don't you need to install a timeline app, and pick who gets to see a timeline vs your wall?
I hardly feel it was shoved down users throats.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 02:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

I went above and beyond and just blocked them everywhere.
#a(href*=facebook.com/sharer) #a(href*=plusone.google.com/_/+1) #a(href*=twitter.com/intent)
If that causes problems I might restrict them to slashdot.org. But it probably won't.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by postbigbang · 2012-01-09 03:00 · Score: 1

The ghostery plug-in also gives a satisfying smackdown to numerous scripty page warts and barnacles-with-ears.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Bucc5062 · 2012-01-09 03:01 · Score: 1

Can you explian this edit? Are they added somewhere in ad-block plus, some file on the system? I too don't like the social buttons to default to always pop up on my pages.

--
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by ZombieBraintrust · 2012-01-09 03:05 · Score: 1

Advertisers are not clicking through facebook pages. They are using automated tools to scrape them or using facebook's API to get the info. All this information was visible to these tools before. This update levels the playing field by giving a facebook user more info about what is stored on facebook. It is a good thing privacy wise.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 03:06 · Score: 0

You might want to re-think who you want as your friends. If your "friends" are giving your personal information away to an entity who then sells it downstream to anyone who wants it, including most likely the big brother TLA agencies, I'd suggest those people are not actually friends.
My friends, somehow, do not do this to me. You need a better class of friends.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by shadowrat · 2012-01-09 03:11 · Score: 1

one of Facebook's motive is to confuse users as much it can with respect to privacy. Timeline is doing that. for e.g., if u enable timeline any person on FB can see where u are born
you mean people will be able to view what is already public record? oh the horror!
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 03:12 · Score: 1

No, his friend just carries a used vagina in his pocket. It's quite creepy really :(
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 03:15 · Score: 1

Yes, they're AdBlock Plus blocking rules. Put them in the Element Hiding Rules section.
They block <a> tags based on the content of their href attribute. *= means "contains the following string".
Putting slashdot.org before the # will restrict to this domain (and subdomains of it).
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 03:15 · Score: 0

Sorry to hear you are no longer going to use the internet, cell phones, and you are moving off the grid to a cave and continue to live alone so no one can say or think about you without your permission. You know you are tracked everywhere, isp, search engine, etc all by your ip address and more. You can not escape from us. Your phone calls are tracked, and over heard using technology to see what key words you use to flag you. All you posts that you seem to like using your handle here http://slashdot.org/~L4t3r4lu5 is tracked so anyone can read about you and see what your thinking.

You need to man up and tell the people who are doing the tagging and doing the invites to take a hike and quit it. It's not a social network fault that they give their users easy to use features that draw more money to the sites.

Oh and I forgot the Backdoors in the operating systems that allow the government to see what you are doing on your computer. Also the IOS Government Backdoor that people should read about http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=458180
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 03:17 · Score: 1

All of the things you mentioned annoy me too. That's one of the reasons why I have a Facebook account. Since I have an account, I can control the settings. If someone tries to tag me in a picture (and they do!), I get an email with a chance to approve it. I don't approve them, I go delete the tag from the picture. Facebook doesn't know where I live (fake address in a different state). They don't know my phone number. My security settings are pretty locked down and don't allow strangers to message me, etc. If you do this, you are better able to manage what people may post about you on Facebook than you can if you don't even have an account.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by TheRaven64 · 2012-01-09 03:18 · Score: 1

There's always been privacy on Facebook. Any data that you place on Facebook is made difficult to access for anyone who doesn't pay Facebook.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by kelemvor4 · 2012-01-09 03:28 · Score: 1

Anyone could see those years and dates to begin with. They were always there.

According to the complaint in TFA, that is not quite true.

EPIC described Facebook’s launch by saying the social networking giant is posting “archived user information” so as to make “old posts available under Facebook’s current downgraded privacy settings” all “without user consent.” Furthermore, the group noted “users have just a week to clean up their history before Timeline goes live.”
So if you do nothing and the feature goes live, information that would have previously been not displayed due to your privacy settings will now be displayed.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by zarthrag · 2012-01-09 03:38 · Score: 1

This should be illegal in the first place. You shouldn't have to opt-in because of a lack of an opt-out.

--
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by luis_a_espinal · 2012-01-09 03:43 · Score: 1

I have every reason to hate users of Facebook who enter information about me. I may not be on Facebook, but I can still be tagged in a photo, have my name used in a "Check in" style post, have my details entered as an invitation to join Facebook (thereby linking my email address to me, the person who submitted the invitation, any picture I am tagged in without my knowledge etc). I'm not paranoid, I just dislike the idea of my life being profiled by a private entity without my consent. I'm well aware that store / loyalty cards, CC companies etc do this; I accept that as part of the terms of service. What do I gain from Facebook?
I wonder what you will do if a friend posts a picture of you on a non-FB page, like a blog or a non-commercial web page. What are you going to do? Or if a newspaper takes a picture on the street and you are in it. What are you going to do?
At the very least, if a friend or acquaintance of yours post/tag a pic of you, you can ask them to undo just that. You cannot do that with other venues, at least not easily and without involving legal action.
I can understand the desire of being a hermit, but to go bananas because a friend (not a random person, but someone you call a friend) tags you on his FB, what's wrong with you? Yes, you have a right to get all pissy, but still, what's wrong with you? You are just building strawmen to be upset at, building up a cause to be upset about and for all the interweebz to see, that's all.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 03:47 · Score: 0

Not everyone is aware that this is an issue to someone else. If all the people you know are privacy-conscious, you probably don't know that much people.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-01-09 03:49 · Score: 2

Ha, good try. Your fake address is one "At $YourName's house for a kewl patray!" check in post + GPS coordinates away from being rendered useless.

See, I used to have a Facebook account. However all I ever ended up doing was confirming the data which was personal by refusing to allow it to be published.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by luis_a_espinal · 2012-01-09 04:00 · Score: 2

All of the things you mentioned annoy me too. That's one of the reasons why I have a Facebook account. Since I have an account, I can control the settings. If someone tries to tag me in a picture (and they do!), I get an email with a chance to approve it. I don't approve them, I go delete the tag from the picture. Facebook doesn't know where I live (fake address in a different state). They don't know my phone number. My security settings are pretty locked down and don't allow strangers to message me, etc. If you do this, you are better able to manage what people may post about you on Facebook than you can if you don't even have an account.
^^^ THIS.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-01-09 04:12 · Score: 1

I don't want to be hermit. Go back and redo your reading comprehension classes from grade / primary school. I said I don't want a private company, from which I require no service and gain no remuneration, to profit from my personal data. That is not an alien concept, one quite sufficiently backed up by the widespread concern of identity theft, for one example.

To me, the costs out-weigh the benefits. This is basic logic.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 04:19 · Score: 0

When I switched to timeline view A LOT of my photo albums were made "public" by default along with a handful of other things. My only guess why is because they were old enough albums that no privacy data was stored. Seems like the default value for converting old data should be Private/Friends Only and not Public.
I viewed my profile as "public" and went through a lot of things setting them to private... I could see where people would complain about this. I did it before I made my timeline "public" so it wasn't a big deal to me.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 04:21 · Score: 0

I already knew what was stored on facebook about me.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by SomePgmr · 2012-01-09 04:29 · Score: 1

I'm not aware of Facebook selling my information, though I know they use it to target ads. I'd be somewhat interested to know if they are, though I don't share much about myself that isn't public knowledge.

That said, more than once I've had to ask some acquaintances to take down photos of me. I just don't love the idea of there being photos of me all red-faced inebriated being posted on the internet.

When you're goofing around with friends somewhere, that's one thing. Sharing the photographic evidence of that with hundreds or thousands of people you don't even know... well that's unnecessary. I don't want to feel like I have to be careful about what I say or do when I'm tying one on with friends (on the rare occasions we do anymore).
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by AthanasiusKircher · 2012-01-09 04:39 · Score: 1

This particular change doesn't seem to significantly change privacy, but...

You just have to be smart with what information you enter, and what you do with it, and there, no risk at all.
No "risk" of what, exactly?
The studies on what you can gather from Facebook data are shocking. Simply based on who you are friends with, researchers have shown they can accurately guess whether you're gay, where your hometown is, what your approximately birthdate is, etc., even if you don't make those facts available on your profile. With an extrapolated hometown and approximate birthdate, they can pretty accurately figure out the first five digits of your Social Security number (something like 30% of the time). If someone had a large sample of data, they could probably predict the other digits as well.
With face recognition software, someone could snap a picture of you and get to a probable SS# and other personal details in a matter of seconds.
Granted, this doesn't work all the time. But even if your profile is empty, facts about your friends may allow someone to predict a lot of stuff about you. That's the power of statistics and aggregate data.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by DCTech · 2012-01-09 04:43 · Score: 1

Sorry, but people might talk about you, or show pictures of you, in real life too. You won't even know about it, and you can't really opt-out of that either. Or you can if you don't deal with other people at all. But then you solve your issue with Facebook at the same time.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by SomePgmr · 2012-01-09 05:03 · Score: 1

When your mom mentions you on the phone or shows someone a picture, the likely 3rd party exposure of that mention or photo is 1 or 2. On facebook, it's the number of tagged individuals, + 1, times the number of friends each of those people has (let's call it avg 200). So 4 people in one photo, posted by a fifth, is 1,000+ individuals in one, nonchalant post. Often more.

Short of robbing a bank and ending up on the news, you didn't usually have to think about that kind of exposure before facebook.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by luis_a_espinal · 2012-01-09 05:05 · Score: 1

I don't want to be hermit. Go back and redo your reading comprehension classes from grade / primary school. I said I don't want a private company, from which I require no service and gain no remuneration, to profit from my personal data. That is not an alien concept, one quite sufficiently backed up by the widespread concern of identity theft, for one example. To me, the costs out-weigh the benefits. This is basic logic.
Yes, and as you tell me I lack reading comprehension, I remind you of the questions I posted that still remained unanswered.

I wonder what you will do if a friend posts a picture of you on a non-FB page, like a blog or a non-commercial web page. What are you going to do? Or if a newspaper takes a picture on the street and you are in it. What are you going to do?
Yes, I get you. Still, what are you going to do about it? Hate facebook users as you said in the post of yours that I first replied? That's just an asinine response, and that is my point of contention. What's the point of being so aware of privacy concerns if the response you produce not conductive for what you desire? If you are going to be (or claim to be) logical, be all the way.
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Man+Eating+Duck · 2012-01-09 05:17 · Score: 1

The ghostery plug-in also gives a satisfying smackdown to numerous scripty page warts and barnacles-with-ears.
Seconded. It's currently blocking two trackers and three social network plugins (which are probably trackers as well) on Slashdot. It will also block many third-party discussion plugins like Facebook comments under articles at online newspapers, which may or may not be regarded as a benefit according to your view. I personally find that discussions under news articles are seldom constructive. Before some smartass jokes about me reading Slashdot comments, that's a different case entirely :)

--
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Ihmhi · 2012-01-09 05:40 · Score: 1

If we're getting Slashdot-related wishes granted, I'd prefer they spend some time making Slashcode less of a massive clusterfuck. Slashdot is hands down the slowest, clunkiest, and least user-friendly website that I use on a daily basis.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 06:11 · Score: 0

Holy crap. When did they add those? and why? Social media doesn't make everything better, damnit. Letting facetards and twatter users know that slashdot exists will sink this community faster than anything has before.
On the other hand, why not do this in reverse? I would love a slashdot button on my facebook that will post messages from my feed to slashdot. Idle would be really interested in the bagel I had this morning...I took a photo because it was so beautiful. My god, the experience of watching the world go by from a place none of you have probably ever heard of while eating an organic breakfast that was completely guilt-free because it was made by fair trade supporters...
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 07:12 · Score: 0

With a friend like Ed Gein, who needs enemies?
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 07:21 · Score: 0

Well you could just turn on Tag / Checkin approvals and leave it at that. https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=223100381057791#How-do-I-turn-on-the-option-to-review-posts-and-photos-I%E2%80%99m-tagged-in-before-they-appear-on-my-profile?
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Brian+Feldman · 2012-01-09 12:24 · Score: 1

So what you're saying is that Social Security Numbers should not be treated as a confidential security token, right? Because you can already restrict arbitrary, unknown people from reading your friends list or anything else in your profile by setting the appropriate permissions, and you haven't really mentioned anything else.

--
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 14:59 · Score: 0

Troll solution: view slashdot on a resolution wide enough that you can't see the right side of the page without turning your head (also a function of your vision quality). Then you can't even tell the social buttons are there :P
Re:What it has to do with privacy? by ThunderBird89 · 2012-01-09 21:05 · Score: 1

Just because one uses/used AOL, there was no reason to hate them. That's stereotyping, just like if I said you're an overweight savant with glasses five centimeters thick, who live in their parents' converted basement and owns six hundred Star Wars and Star Trek action figures, just because you commented on Slashdot. Simply not true (I think). Even if it happened to be true in your case, it certainly isn't in mine, so the stereotype is already broken.

--
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!

Not a Facebook fan, but.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 01:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm not a Facebook fan at all, but if anything it appears to me that the new timeline and accompanying activity view make it easer to hide, delete and change the audience of individual items.

Stop saying EPIC by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 01:50 · Score: 0, Redundant

About everything!!!! Oh wait, it fits here. NVM :p

Oh NOES!!!! by Vegemeister · 2012-01-09 01:51 · Score: 1, Redundant

Facebook has changed its page layout again! Whatever shall we do?1!?!?!1/

Just a new, condensed view by buchner.johannes · 2012-01-09 01:52 · Score: 1

It just makes you even more aware/scared of all the things Facebook has on you. Which is good.
Aside from the privacy-concerns of giving away so much information at once it is a really nice visualization feature.

--
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.

As a programmer... by Pionar · 2012-01-09 01:53 · Score: 4, Funny

The first thing I noticed in TFS was the unmatched parentheses.

Re:As a programmer... by troon · 2012-01-09 02:09 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm still waiting for the summary to finish...

--
Ydco co ,df C erb-y go. a Ekrpat t.fxrapev
Re:As a programmer... by heathen_01 · 2012-01-09 02:12 · Score: 1

As a programmer I ignore trivial problems that the tools I use catch for me.
Re:As a programmer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 02:23 · Score: 0

I almost had an aneurysm when I spotted that. I saw 3 years of my life vanish in an instant.
I must write a userscript to complete parenthesis on pages for me. It's too dangerous to leave those things out in the wild. They'll cause all sorts of havoc.
Re:As a programmer... by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 02:41 · Score: 2

That's what you get for reading TFS.
I think I read the first sentence and the last sentence and completely ignored what came in between them.
Re:As a programmer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 05:00 · Score: 0

I'm still waiting for the summary to finish...
)

And.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 01:59 · Score: 0

When people sign up the agree to let Facebook change HOW stuff is displayed. EPIC is an EPIC failure.

Remove social buttons from comments? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 02:00 · Score: 0

While we are on the subject - is there a way to remove the obnoxious social sharing button that flickers down the page while I try to read comments? I can't picture a situation that I'd ever want to share a comment from this site and it is incredibly distracting while I try to read...

Re:Remove social buttons from comments? by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 02:44 · Score: 4, Informative

Can, and already did. You can too.
Block them everywhere:
#a(href*=facebook.com/sharer) #a(href*=plusone.google.com/_/+1) #a(href*=twitter.com/intent)
or just on Slashdot:
slashdot.org#a(href*=facebook.com/sharer) slashdot.org#a(href*=plusone.google.com/_/+1) slashdot.org#a(href*=twitter.com/intent)
Bonus filters, no additional charge:
#a(href*=goat.) #a(href*=goatse.) slashdot.org#a(href*=/boredgeek) slashdot.org#a(href*=/geekatwork) slashdot.org#a(href*=/goo.gl/) slashdot.org#a(href*=/is.gd/)
Re:Remove social buttons from comments? by phorm · 2012-01-09 06:06 · Score: 1

Where are you adding these entries?
Re:Remove social buttons from comments? by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:12 · Score: 1

Firefox, AdBlock Plus filter rules (Ctrl-Shift-F). You should be able to copy them to the clipboard and add them to your filter rules just by hitting Ctrl-V.

Facebook? by bytesex · 2012-01-09 02:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Facebook is not critical infrastructure (or even near it); users willingly and knowlingly signed up for what amounts to a toy. A toy with commercial motives.

--
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.

Re:Facebook? by Tharsman · 2012-01-09 02:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Unfortunately, the way they work, they already have a profile on you even if you dont sign up on their serivce. So many websites add that "useful" Like button, that servers as a tracking trojan, that it's impossible to navigate without being caught and profiled by Facebook. They keep growing a profile on you even if you dont have an account. They'll just tie everything up the day you actually make an account to "check some friend's pictures" or something.
Re:Facebook? by Max+Romantschuk · 2012-01-09 02:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

Facebook is no mere toy. Used properly it is an efficient communications platform. Not perfect by any means, but denying Facebook's strength as a communications platform is really quite ignorant.

--
.: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
Re:Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 03:43 · Score: 1

.....ha ha ha ha ha ha
Re:Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 03:57 · Score: 0

Which is why you disable it using abp and noscript...
You are the product not the end customer...
I have a facebook account. And the only time any of their sites are enabled is when I am on that site. With an account I at least have a miniscule amount of control. I am going to be tagged in the service anyway...
Re:Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 04:11 · Score: 0

it's impossible to navigate without being caught and profiled by Facebook.
Lolwut?
You mean, the tracking crap that YOUR computer requests and loads? My computer doesn't, because I don't want them to track me. If you voluntarily load their like buttons and javascript infested crap, don't complain when they know you loaded it.
Look, it's your computer. You get to control what it does. It is beholden to you, and no one else. That means that you get to decide what it should and should not do. If you don't want to load FB's like button, by all means, don't load it! But it makes no sense to do so and then bitch that you did it. It's your choice!
Re:Facebook? by http · 2012-01-09 04:48 · Score: 1

What communication feature does Facebook have that email/IM does not?

--
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
Re:Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 05:03 · Score: 0

How about targeted demographic with social (pressure) connections. Required analogy: Email/IM is a conversation whereas facebook is a town square.
I have a facebook profile which is all positive, wonderful and makes me look like a saint. When an individual "Likes" something, it is often broadcasted or associated with the user's profile. Those associations create a demographic and an archetype.
Archetypes can be exploited, directed and organized. This organization creates tribes (social networks with common goals/ideals/identity).
I just "Liked" a movie that will be released later this year so I can follow their progress. They have access to all my demographic data including my associations.
You don't get all that information via email/IM.
Re:Facebook? by Max+Romantschuk · 2012-01-09 05:10 · Score: 2

What communication feature does Facebook have that email/IM does not?
Tehnically: Nothing.
In practice: I don't have to hunt for email addresses or tell my technically clueless friends how to use IM brand X. I just tell them that well talk/message on Facebook and from their perspective, things Just Work.

--
.: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/

Presentation Change Only by MacGyver2210 · 2012-01-09 02:10 · Score: 1

Facebook is ok on this one, to an extent.

The only thing that I can tell the timeline does is make information on someone's profile page absolutely impossible to find. That should IMPROVE the users' security if nothing else.

--
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits

Display only by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 02:22 · Score: 0

Timeline is just a new way for Facebook to show off all the data they have with you. It is just better organized and makes it even more creepy. As soon as my profile kicks over to the timeline, I am dumping Facebook for good and just keeping a anonymous account to work on my developer stuff with.

confused by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 02:28 · Score: 0

I'm confused why so many people seem to dislike Facebook.... and use it anyway.

Seriously, why would you keep using something you don't like? Why do they complain to the FTC about anything? Why not just, you know... not use it any more?

You can always change the channel... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 02:35 · Score: 1

This "free" service has a cost and that cost is the value that the company can extract from your information by selling it to whoever is willing to pay for it.
Four-five years ago, the notion that FB was collecting and selling private info was dismissed as conspiracy theory. Today, it causes outrage.
The remedy, as always is to stop using it. Judging by the ever increasing number of users, that's not happening, so the privacy concerns only bother us enough to register the token complaint but not enough to stop using the service. When the balance tilts the other way, we'll just change the channel.

Of course it impacts privacy. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 03:04 · Score: 0

Case in point.
A user chooses to *hide* most if not all of their content. Must be a friend before you can see anything, including photos and videos, etc...
Now, timeline comes along and all of a sudden things that were thought hidden or long gone are suddenly visible.
Short video clips, when the user joined facebook, when photos were posted are all visible now.

It definitely exposed more data than previously, which is why I've disabled / prevented timeline from functioning - and will for as long as possible.

ENSURE by Draque · 2012-01-09 03:04 · Score: 2

There's a reason that there are two different words, one meaning "a fiscal investment against mishap" and the other meaning "to make certain."

Re:ENSURE by mcgrew · 2012-01-09 06:31 · Score: 2

Webster's Dictionary disagrees.
Definition of INSURE
transitive verb
1: to provide or obtain insurance on or for
2: to make certain especially by taking necessary measures and precautions

--
Free Martian Whores!

without asking users first by Lindan9 · 2012-01-09 03:33 · Score: 1

this free service I use keeps doing things with out asking me first.

Hanlon's razor by luis_a_espinal · 2012-01-09 03:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

You might want to re-think who you want as your friends. If your "friends" are giving your personal information away to an entity who then sells it downstream to anyone who wants it, including most likely the big brother TLA agencies, I'd suggest those people are not actually friends.

Or maybe they are friends, but are not educated in the implications. May I suggest you familiarize yourself with Hanlon's razor before judging you don't know and their worthiness for friendship? I don't know, something to do with social skills, rational thought, humanism, or something.

My friends, somehow, do not do this to me. You need a better class of friends.

Wow, just wow.

Re:Hanlon's razor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 04:37 · Score: 0

Wow, just wow.
What, exactly, is wrong with expecting your so called "friends" to not betray your trust?
Re:Hanlon's razor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 04:46 · Score: 0

Friends don't post things that involve you on Facebook to betray your trust. They do it because that's what everyone else does. It has little or nothing to do with quality of your friends... a measure usually having little to do with facebook.

Basically, most normal people don't get nearly as uptight about information sharing as we do, so they don't understand that "checking in" somewhere with your name, as friends will often do, is akin to stomping the life out of your dog.
Re:Hanlon's razor by luis_a_espinal · 2012-01-09 05:00 · Score: 2

Wow, just wow.
What, exactly, is wrong with expecting your so called "friends" to not betray your trust?
Again, wow, just wow. Ignorance of what you desire is not an indication of betrayal. As I said before, Hanlon's razor, which what separates reasonable expectations and stupidity. It is stupid to take actions carried out of ignorance/innocence and attribute malice or betrayal connotations to it. Yes, it is stupid, regardless of how you want to rationalize it.
Re:Hanlon's razor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 05:34 · Score: 0

Ignorance of what you desire is not an indication of betrayal.

You could... maybe... TALK to them and tell them your preference. You know, actually communicating with another human being, like people used to do back in the days before Facebook.
Oh, wait, I forgot, this is slashdot. Never mind.
It's seriouslly bizarre to me to see the lengths to which the FB-sheep will go to excuse their lack of basic ability to communicate with other human beings without somebody else recording every word they say and logging it forever.

My question by HideyoshiJP · 2012-01-09 04:16 · Score: 1

I wonder who Facebook isn't paying? Not to troll too much, but the government has been pretty corporatist lately. I suggest to Facebook to get some better paid lobbyists. Yes, I'm terribly cynical.

Block EVERYWHERE 4 any webbound app by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 04:48 · Score: 0

0.0.0.0 a.fsdn.com Add THAT in a custom HOSTS file

Means it's then blocked everywhere globally

(Not only just certain webbrowsers with AdBlock type addons do...)

* HOWEVER - Layering in BOTH methods is probably the "best" way to go, just to get "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" vs. this thing though...

(Also - By not loading its data, you also save that bandwidth too (bonus, because YOU PAID FOR THAT BANDWIDTH out-of-pocket most likely - get your hard-earned money's worth!))

APK

P.S.=> Additionally, HOSTS aren't just for browsers that have AdBlock addons, but also work for:

---

1.) Globally for apps like Email programs external to webbrowsers, &/or any webbound application really!

2.) Global protection running @ ring 0/rpl 0/PnP kernelmode driver level, fastest & most efficient there is, as opposed to addons only runs in ring 3/rpl 3/usermode too = slower/less efficient + being limited to certain browsers only & NOT "global" to any/every webbound app too!

3.) Browser addons like AdBlock can slow browsers down (FF mostly this happens I have noted) IF You add too many addons, as well!

---

The latter doesn't happen with HOSTS files, & can actually speed you up by:

---

A.) "Hardcoding" your fav. sites into it

B.) Via A above, then you're avoiding potentially misdirected/dns poisoned DNS servers, DNSBL's &/or DNS Request Logs

C.) Resolving sites to their IP address FASTER once locally cached into RAM too from a HOSTS file "hardcode" of a site (vs. calling out to remote DNS servers @ all (much slower))

D.) Faster & SAFER online too (via blocking adbanners which HAVE had malicious script in them before, & more like they slowing you down & robbing you of bandwidth + speed YOU PAID FOR out of pocket)

---

"Here endeth the lesson"...

... apk

Re:Block EVERYWHERE 4 any webbound app by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 04:50 · Score: 1

I actually use Facebook. Your custom HOSTS file would make Facebook simply not work.
Re:Block EVERYWHERE 4 any webbound app by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 04:53 · Score: 1

Oh, and by the way, fsdn.com is Slashdot, not Facebook. You're thinking of fbcdn.com.

Like button ? facebook what's that ? by aepervius · 2012-01-09 04:49 · Score: 1

host file : facebook.com 127.0.0.1 etc...

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org

Odd: I C Facebook w/ a.fsdn.com HOST blocked! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 05:03 · Score: 0

Then don't block it via HOSTS files. HOWEVER, oddly? Well - I get to Facebook sites though doing it..

(HOWEVER - I don't use facebook myself, so you MAY be correct IF you use facebook I suppose, & then you're better off "selectively blocking" via addons like AdBlock OR Opera's right-click "block content" option for selective blocks etc.).

APK

P.S.=> Oddly, the ONLY issue I have ever had even SEEING facebook pages is in my router!

E.G. -> When I set it to filter:

---

A.) Cookies
B.) JAVA applets (the one I suspect most, but haven't checked FOR SURE - I don't "do facebook" myself's why)
C.) ActiveX
D.) Proxies

---

Then? Heh - Then, I can't even SEE large tracts of facebook pages @ all (nearly zero/nada/squat/zip)...

... apk

Re:Odd: I C Facebook w/ a.fsdn.com HOST blocked! by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 05:53 · Score: 1

No, never mind, this was about Facebook and I (strangely) assumed you were talking about Facebook.
I'd like to know how Slashdot looks without the CSS from a.fsdn.com. My guess is, it looks like shit. But I don't suppose that bothers you. Personally, I like the AJAX-y goodness that is Slashdot 2.0. If you like bludgeoning the internet into barely-working crap before you read it, that's your business.

Got a.fsdn.com from Nursie' post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 05:06 · Score: 0

I got a.fsdn.com from "Nursie"'s post, here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38637024

APK

Re:Got a.fsdn.com from Nursie' post by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:00 · Score: 1

Nursie said to block a very specific URL, not an entire subdomain. You and your hammer are unwelcome here. Not every problem is a nail. You can't just bash an entire subdomain into nonexistence because you don't like ONE PICTURE on it.

Checked my HOSTS: fbcdn.com != blocked by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 05:16 · Score: 0

Some "FYI" in my subject-line above, so you're probably right & perhaps Nursie was wrong here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38637024

APK

P.S.=> Also, oddly? The ONLY issues I ever had seeing facebook pages is due to my router's filtering!

E.G. -> When I set it to filter:

---

A.) Cookies
B.) JAVA applets (the one I suspect most, but haven't checked FOR SURE - I don't "do facebook" myself's why)
C.) ActiveX
D.) Proxies

---

Then? Heh - Then, I can't even SEE large tracts of facebook pages @ all!

(Nearly zero/nada/squat/zip)...

Just as I stated to yourself or another poster in this exchange, here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38638762

... apk

Re:Checked my HOSTS: fbcdn.com != blocked by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:09 · Score: 1

No, Nursie was correct: if you AdBlock that URL (not the entire a.fsdn.com subdomain), the annoying icons will be blocked on Slashdot.
See here for my AdBlock rules that block annoying Facebook/Google+/Twitter integration everywhere (not just on Slashdot).

You *MAY* wish 2 read _0xd0ad's post... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 05:30 · Score: 0

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38638626

(So, "small wonder" that I can see facebook users' pages blocking a.fsdn.com as I said, eh?)

HOWEVER: It's NURSIE who said the "one to block" = a.fsdn.com here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38637024

Apparently, it's really -> fbcdn.com to 'block' (or not) from this poster _0xd0ad here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38638626

* You guys decide, because as I said? I don't USE/DO "facebook", for a LOT of reasons...

APK

P.S.=> Security & privacy being the "main ones" really, because until they "get more solid" on those fronts? I am just "leery" of it (as I am with smartphones for the most part too, especially ANDROID ones (cool as they are, need more "maturation" on the security front imo, the most))...

... apk_0xd0ad

Re:You *MAY* wish 2 read _0xd0ad's post... by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:05 · Score: 1

You *MAY* wish 2 read _0xd0ad's post
Read it? I wrote it.

Apparently, it's really -> fbcdn.com to 'block' (or not) from this poster _0xd0ad here
Blocking fbcdn.com will make Facebook not work. I did not say you should block it. Unless you can block it on everything except Facebook, so that Facebook will still work. But your HOSTS file can't do that.

A simple solution to this merry-go-round by JasonBee · 2012-01-09 06:00 · Score: 1

Give FB users the option of paying 1 dollar per month (okay...99 cents) for the service. Offer premium options.

Lord know they have plenty of well paid staff on board to build the option.

Roll experimental services (that annoy people) out to all non-paying members, explain that they can avoid all such issues by paying the nominal fee. The 12.00 per year will give you some form of SLA and a requirement by FB to conform to some other norm. Paying clients will appreciate the extra voice they have, because they are paying customers.

if FB fails to comply, they've set the paid service bar high enough that other services will start charging, making other options viable.

If you pay for your data, you can also truly "own" it, and likely pay for the option to dump it all and move on.

Oh, and FB could well raise another 100-200 million a year this way, which gives a potential IPO some heft.

I'm paying decent monthly fees to several services now. I prefer to pay for my social networks now that I've experienced the underbelly of free service SLAs.

I referred 2 Nursie's post's all (what 2 block) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 06:12 · Score: 0

"I'd like to know how Slashdot looks without the CSS from a.fsdn.com. My guess is, it looks like shit. But I don't suppose that bothers you." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @12:53PM (#38639422)

Looks fine, & LOADS A HELL OF A LOT FASTER TOO & safe(r) also!

(E.G.-> No adbanner loads, & I don't allow javascript, the "harbinger of doom" for malscripting the past few years now, to "run by default" on pages I use (Opera has selective "by site preferences" & globally I block out cookies, plugins, javascript, java, frames/iframes & more that are KNOWN to be misused too & I activate them, individually ONLY AS NEEDED on sites that need it for function I require, so sites that DO require them for functionality I require, work!)

---

"Personally, I like the AJAX-y goodness that is Slashdot 2.0." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @12:53PM (#38639422)

To each his own: 9/10 times? I don't require javascript functionality on MOST sites, & certainly not here on /. (not a "registered 'luser'" is why, lol, mostly I'd imagine)...

(I am only here for the data the articles point me to & discussion with others on it, to learn/gain by etc./et al. + I don't NEED javascript for THAT much, this is certain!)

---

PER MY SUBJECT-LINE ABOVE & THIS QUOTE FROM YOU:

"No, never mind, this was about Facebook and I (strangely) assumed you were talking about Facebook." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @12:53PM (#38639422)

I was merely referring to what NURSIE put out for the hosts/domain name to block out's all, from here http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38637024

(I assumed it was correct for FACEBOOK's all & again - I don't "do" facebook!)

Anyhow/anyways:

---

"If you like bludgeoning the internet into barely-working crap before you read it, that's your business." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @12:53PM (#38639422)

Well, it's like with cars: IF I don't need various addons to them, why waste power/speed running them? Power steering, brakes, A/C all ROB you of power/mileage, & approximately 15/20 hp a pop!).

APK

P.S.=> When I had more "serious" V8 type cars in my past, "FULL BORE" out & out 'hotrodding' them MEANT disconnecting power-robbing "amenities" like the ones noted above... That, plus using lightweight fans + headers (& more of course, every bit helps) gained even MORE back, etc./et al in terms of HorsePower...

... apk

Re:I referred 2 Nursie's post's all (what 2 block) by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:20 · Score: 1

Looks fine, & LOADS A HELL OF A LOT FASTER TOO & safe(r) also!
LOL, no, I just tried it out of curiosity and it does indeed look like utter crap if you HOSTS-block the a.fsdn.com domain.
If anyone is curious as to what it looks like, and doesn't want to muck with their HOSTS file, just go to View -> Page Style -> No Style. Then when you've had enough of the unstyled HTML vomit, go back and select Basic Page Style to fix it.

Makes life simple by Fuzzums · 2012-01-09 06:13 · Score: 1

It's a lot easier to see if you left any old messages undeleted.

Of course fb doesn't remove these messages. It just sets visibility = false and never forgets...

--
Privacy is terrorism.

I don't block fbcdn.com in HOSTS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 06:27 · Score: 0

Hence, why I can see facebook users' pages fine per my subject above.

Again:

NURSIE said block a.fsdn.com here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38637024

(I merely assumed that's what to block for facebook's all since he stated that's what to block & I don't "DO" facebook here as a user of it etc., so I assume you guys posted "straight information"'s all).

* So, that "all said & aside" (lol, for the 3rd or 4th time now)? Take it up w/ Nursie, here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38637024

APK

P.S.=>

"Blocking fbcdn.com will make Facebook not work." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @01:05PM (#38639576)

I know, but see my subject-line above (& my other posts, I don't block that host-domain)... which IS probably WHY I can see/use facebook users' stuff (rarely, not into facebook here really - not until it's more 'security mature' @ least).

QUESTION: Perhaps YOU can help me here! The ONLY time I have "issues" with facebook pages, is this (in my router rules for security):

E.G. -> When I set it to filter:

---

A.) Cookies
B.) JAVA applets (the one I suspect most, but haven't checked FOR SURE - I don't "do facebook" myself's why)
C.) ActiveX
D.) Proxies

---

Then? Heh - Then, I can't even SEE large tracts of facebook pages @ all!

(Nearly zero/nada/squat/zip)...

---

"I did not say you should block it." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @01:05PM (#38639576)

I know that - read more closely please

(Sorry if you misunderstood me's all IF that's the case also)...

I was pointing others to what NURSIE said's all, vs. what YOU said!

(That is, IF they choose to do that as I noted to do (or not) specifically... & yes, I do block a.fsdn.com though & /. works JUST FINE in fact, faster & safer, by far...).

---

"Unless you can block it on everything except Facebook, so that Facebook will still work. But your HOSTS file can't do that" - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @01:05PM (#38639576)

I never said it could, I only stated it works for host-domain names, not IP addresses & to refer to YOUR POST for possibly better information than what NURSIE put out (see link above on THAT account)...

(Just "crossed wires" between us is all I suspect, we're "on the same page/wavelength" for the most part!)

APK

P.S.=>

"Read it? I wrote it. " - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @01:05PM (#38639576)

Yup, got ya... I was just trying to get folks to "watch out" for what YOU said (fbcdn.com) vs. what NURSIE said (a.fsdn.com) - DO ALSO NOTE that I said to "block it (or not)" in what you quoted from me also (this is up to the user/individual's all) ...

... apk

Re:I don't block fbcdn.com in HOSTS by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:34 · Score: 1

The ONLY time I have "issues" with facebook pages, is this (in my router rules for security)
Of course you will have issues with Facebook pages if you set your router to block cookies. Most of Facebook requires you to be logged in. Logging in requires enabling cookies.
Did you really fail to realize that most of Facebook won't work if you block cookies? You seemed like a halfway intelligent guy until that.

Yup, got ya... I was just trying to get folks to "watch out" for what YOU said (fbcdn.com) vs. what NURSIE said (a.fsdn.com)
Oh please. Do you really expect anyone to believe that?
Blocking the URL that Nursie said to block will prevent the annoying image from loading. Blocking the <a> tags by their href attribute (as I suggested doing here) will hide the entire <a> element (including the annoying image inside it).
There's more than one way to skin a cat when you're not just nuking entire subdomains via HOSTS.

A Challenge 2U (hosts vs. adblock &/or DNS alo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 06:35 · Score: 0

"You and your hammer are unwelcome here." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @01:00PM (#38639518)

LMAO - you "own /."? No. I wouldn't tell ME what to do until you do.

---

"Not every problem is a nail.." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @01:00PM (#38639518)

I know that, but... When YOU or Nursie post the correct information between you? Then, I make appropriate statements... see below on HOSTS vs. AdBlock &/or DNS alone!

---

"You can't just bash an entire subdomain into nonexistence because you don't like ONE PICTURE on it.." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @01:00PM (#38639518)

Ahem: I can do ANYTHING I want, where I want to, & how... & your "orders" & rather RUDE approach (you post 1 address, Nursie another, get your SHIT straight guys)? Immaterial to me.

---

CHALLENGE:

I challenge you 2 disprove 20 points in favor of HOSTS files over AdBlock alone:

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added "layered"/"defense-in-depth" security + SPEED:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Adblock blocks ads (not anymore apparently, lol:

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option )

in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook!)

Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions (in-addr.arpa) via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!

6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can.

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR

Re:A Challenge 2U (hosts vs. adblock &/or DNS by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:37 · Score: 1

I know that, but... When YOU or Nursie post the correct information between you? Then, I make appropriate statements

Either one of our filter rules would have worked just fine, thanks very much. Neither of us was "wrong", and we didn't disagree in anything except giving two different ways to do the same thing.

And you've got to be kidding if you think I want to read any of your irrelevant linked pages.

I unblock cookies in router, same shit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 06:48 · Score: 0

"Did you really fail to realize that most of Facebook won't work if you block cookies? " - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @01:34PM (#38639918)

I just listed the ALL THE FILTERING OPTIONS IN MY ROUTER, but that I also suspected JAVA to be the issue MOSTLY in my posts on it (see for yourself)...

Please - Read on:

---

"You seemed like a halfway intelligent guy until that." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @01:34PM (#38639918)

Still am! I suspect you must have "SKIMMED" over where I state I suspect the JAVA filter & now upon trying it with cookies on, but JAVA & PROXY still off?

Quite possibly PROXY too!

Though I didn't state THAT earlier, is my router issue w/ facebook, & I "zeroed in" on JAVA mostly.

---

See - I can't see facebook with ALL of those blocked, but I did suspect JAVA filtering 1st (do read my posts's specifics again, you'll note I mentioned THAT much)...

Oddly though, when I enable JAVA with it? Facebook starts working again!

---

"Oh please. Do you really expect anyone to believe that?" - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @01:34PM (#38639918)

Sure, why not? My intent here's NEVER malicious & I have no reasons to lie... & certainly NOT to 'harm others' either! I am here to share information & to learn as well when possible.

APK

P.S.=> In fact?? Those'd be one of the worst things I could do, especially when I'm only attempting to be helpful & direct folks to:

YOUR posts' data ( fbcdn.com -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38638626)

vs.

Nursie's data (a.fsdn.com -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38637024)

Simply so others who DO use facebook (I don't belong on it there for various reasons, mostly security &/or privacy related as I noted above) block appropriately & with the right tools for the job's all - again note: I do NOT block out the host/domain you noted in fbcdn.com (but I do block the one Nursie posted, a.fsdn.com )...

... apk

Re:I unblock cookies in router, same shit by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:55 · Score: 1

I'll "read on" as soon as you have figured out for sure which of the options on your router was raping Facebook.
I say it's cookies.
Facebook doesn't even use Java, by the way.

Rest those tired caps by bjourne · 2012-01-09 06:52 · Score: 1

Hosts is neither an acronym nor an abbrevation.

--
Football Odds

Re:Rest those tired caps by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:57 · Score: 1

Tell that to APK, not me.
Anyway, FAT32 is case-insensitive. It doesn't care, and neither do I.
Re:Rest those tired caps by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:58 · Score: 1

Oh, and before you say anything, so is NTFS.

I block a.fsdn.com one Nursie said (not 1 U said) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 07:02 · Score: 0

"No, Nursie was correct" - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @01:09PM (#38639618)

Good, Nursie & myself in HOSTS are right... & I don't block the host-domain you noted in HOSTS!

That's ALL I wanted to know & I do BLOCK OUT a.fsdn.com & I see no "issues" with the page display (it's faster if anything & quite possibly more secure).

Again - in Opera's "global preferences", I globally block out:

---

1.) Cookies
2.) Plugins
3.) Java
4.) Javascript
5.) Frames/IFrames

---

(All/each are potential malware infection vectors & slow you down too, especially IF/WHEN You don't need them on a site (as I do not for MOST sites)).

HOWEVER - I activate them on a "case-by-case" basis in my Opera 64-bit version 12 Windows browser's options for that, IF/WHEN I do require those features on sites, as needed, individually ("by site preferences", an exceptions list)...

---

"if you AdBlock that URL (not the entire a.fsdn.com subdomain), the annoying icons will be blocked on Slashdot." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @01:09PM (#38639618)

Right - & I do BLOCK what Nursie put out (a.fsdn.com) BUT, NOT what you wrote!

(I checked in my HOSTS file, on fbcdn.com being blocked (see http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38639832 ))

---

"See here for my AdBlock rules that block annoying Facebook/Google+/Twitter integration everywhere (not just on Slashdot).." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @01:09PM (#38639618)

Perhaps I will. I mostly use OPERA 64-bit version 12 here because of its "flexible" global vs. specific site preferences methods!

(Opera 12 64-bit = alpha, but fast & pretty stable)...

However, I use "WaterFox" FF too, so... can't hurt to "beef up" its AdBlock lists more...

(Because I actually DO "layer on" AdBlock, NoScript, HOSTS & firewall rules @ both software & router hardware levels & FAR more for security + speed online).

APK

P.S.=> I am hoping this doesn't "degenerate" into some DUMB argument, when I *think* we're on the "same page/wavelength" here, & I was just telling others to compare YOUR domain you stated, vs. Nursies (the "correct one") etc./et al...

... apk/b

Re:I block a.fsdn.com one Nursie said (not 1 U sai by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 07:05 · Score: 1

I don't block the host-domain you noted ... I do BLOCK OUT a.fsdn.com

So which is it? You don't block it or you do?

I see no "issues" with the page display (it's faster if anything & quite possibly more secure)

And it looks like unstyled HTML vomit, but like I said, that probably wouldn't bother you.

You're restricted to 1 browser/app by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 07:12 · Score: 0

Using Firefox/Mozilla based browser AdBlock (Opera has AdBlock too but, not sure if SAME folks make it for Opera as for FireFox).

"Either one of our filter rules would have worked just fine, thanks very much." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @01:37PM (#38639948)

For single browsers, in slower usermode (vs. rpl 0/ring 9/PnP driver kernelmode via the IP stack & HOSTS operating there more efficiently & FAR faster, GLOBALLY TOO, as a filter that protects ANY webbound app).

HOWEVER/AGAIN, stressing it:

I do filter what Nursie noted, a.fsdn.com, & even /. looks fine

(AND, it loads faster too to boot, & potentially safer (though I think the folks here are pretty good about site security)).

---

"Neither of us was "wrong", and we didn't disagree in anything except giving two different ways to do the same thing." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @01:37PM (#38639948)

Right, I was just clarifying for others to "COMPARE & CONTRAST" for what to BLOCK (or not as I literally stated, by whatever means (in my case, HOSTS, & yours in AdBlock)), whether you believe that or not (you were sarcastic about it earlier, I was being earnest).

Man - I really DO think we're "on the same page/wavelength" here, just "crossed wires" in understanding one another...

(I'd rather this didn't "degenerate" into a DUMB argument, when we're basically on that "same page"!)

---

"And you've got to be kidding if you think I want to read any of your irrelevant linked pages." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @01:37PM (#38639948)

NOT "irrelevant" @ all - That post of mine?

Well... it's points out where AdBlock's "deficient" compared to HOSTS in 20 points (global vs. app local only) & FAR more... nobody YET has disproved its points as stated there either to date.

APK

P.S.=> Plus, face it: ADBLOCK "ain't what it used to be", per this /. article no less:

Adblock Plus Developers To Allow 'Acceptable' Ads - Slashdot

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/12/13/1430236/adblock-plus-developers-to-allow-acceptable-ads

... apk

- by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @01:37PM (#38639948)

Re:You're restricted to 1 browser/app by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 07:23 · Score: 1

You're restricted to 1 browser/app
I only use one browser. Works for me.

NOT "irrelevant" @ all - That post of mine?
No offense, but you posted a TON of stuff. That post of yours was huge, and I'm not reading the entire thing, not even skimming. Much less clicking any of the links.

Plus, face it: ADBLOCK "ain't what it used to be", per this /. article no less:
Adblock Plus Developers To Allow 'Acceptable' Ads - Slashdot
My AdBlock works perfectly well. I have that option turned off.

Come on man: READ - I block a.fsdn.com (not yours) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 07:22 · Score: 0

"So which is it? You don't block it or you do?" - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @02:05PM (#38640290)

See subject-line above... pretty simple!

Again:

I block what Nursie said (a.fsdn.com)

HOWEVER - NOT what you wrote (fbcdn.com)

(Heck - I checked too in my HOSTS, here on that much -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38638918 NOTING EXACTLY WHAT I BLOCK, & WHERE, in big letters in my subject there )

APK

P.S.=>

"And it looks like unstyled HTML vomit, but like I said, that probably wouldn't bother you." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @02:05PM (#38640290)

First of all? That's "personal opinion" & yes, you're entitled to it... but?

That may depend on what browser you use AND how you use it, plus what levels of "control" it has... Opera's allows control of really most ANYTHING in a page pretty much in its "By Site Preferences" AND "Global Preferences" I noted... complete customization @ ANY/ALL LEVELS, which is part of why I like it so much!

Me? I use Opera, which also allows me to use my own stylesheet!

(I do, & I have a custom css that filters adbanners, & a PAC file that helps there too)...

See - I do a LOT more than HOSTS, AdBlock/NoScript (for browsers that have those, not all do), TPL's in IE9, firewalls in routers/software, & more... far more, for "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" as well as FASTER websurfing by far!

... apk/b

bjourne != English Professor etc. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 07:26 · Score: 0

"Grammar/Spelling Nazi's" = off topic & "need not apply" (topic != spelling)

Re:Come on man: READ - I block a.fsdn.com (not you by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 07:31 · Score: 1

I block what Nursie said (a.fsdn.com)

HOWEVER - NOT what you wrote (fbcdn.com)

Good for you. Personally, I block BOTH of them (actually, those 2 plus 3 more: facebook.com, facebook.net, and fbcdn.net), with AdBlock Plus:

||facebook.com^$third-party,domain=~facebook.net|~fbcdn.com|~fbcdn.net
||facebook.net^$third-party,domain=~facebook.com|~fbcdn.com|~fbcdn.net
||fbcdn.com^$third-party,domain=~facebook.com|~facebook.net|~fbcdn.net
||fbcdn.net^$third-party,domain=~facebook.com|~facebook.net|~fbcdn.com
||fsdn.com^$third-party,domain=~slashdot.org

And since they are third-party filter rules with exception domains written in, both Facebook and Slashdot work just fine. I can't do that with a custom hosts file. AdBlock Plus is the only thing I'm aware of that lets me do that level of customization, as simply as just writing an easy-to-understand filter.

Wish I COULD use only 1 browser by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 07:33 · Score: 0

"I only use one browser. Works for me." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @02:23PM (#38640536)

Which is, again fine, just as I stated... but, I had to point that out to you. Per my subject-line above? I have to test on ALL major browsers (read IE9 (mostly from IE, it's current), Opera, FireFox (Waterfox here), & yes even Safari + others too).

---

"No offense, but you posted a TON of stuff.." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @02:23PM (#38640536)

None taken, & Yes, I did post a LOT of data!

See - I am "big" on posting "supporting evidence & documentation" is why (lol, in fact? Heh - /. "taught me that" & MAINLY because of "naysayers" around here DEMANDING backing proofs etc./et al).

---

"That post of yours was huge, and I'm not reading the entire thing, not even skimming. Much less clicking any of the links." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @02:23PM (#38640536)

It is, granted, but... believe it or not?

That post's points DO point out where HOSTS are superior to AdBlock &/or DNS (especially ALONE)...

(And, on 20 separate grounds NOBODY HERE TO DATE has disproven (& I have had a LOT of "naysayers" on that account, in HOSTS files)).

APK

P.S.=> In any event, I *think* you & I have "smoothed out" our "minor differences" (just "crossed wires" imo, but I do think we're on the "same page" now's all)...

... apk

Re:Wish I COULD use only 1 browser by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 07:46 · Score: 1

I have to test on ALL major browsers (read IE9 (mostly from IE, it's current), Opera, FireFox (Waterfox here), & yes even Safari + others too).
Quite frankly, if you "test" on browsers while blocking ads, you're not really "testing". The ads could break the page and you'd never know it.

In any event, I *think* you & I have "smoothed out" our "minor differences" (just "crossed wires" imo, but I do think we're on the "same page" now's all)...
Whatever. Now if you could use sane paragraphs, nice, short, concise posts, and cut out all the annoying yelling (caps and boldface)... then we'd really be on the same page.

Believe it or not? It's what I suspected (Java) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 07:48 · Score: 0

"Facebook doesn't even use Java, by the way." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @01:55PM (#38640178)

Right, I've heard that before... but guess what (& you probably WON'T BELIEVE IT)? Yes - It's the "JAVA applet filtering" security option in my router that does it!

I enabled ALL things in Opera for the test (browser level):

Cookies
JAVA
Frames/IFrames
Plugins
Java
Javascript
Network Referrer
Removed my custom style sheet
Removed my PAC filter

etc., so facebook can USE them IF needed, first (eliminating browser level stuff first). Tried facebook that way, no dice still.

SO, it was ALL router level work @ that point to test it.

Along with cookies filtering + proxy filtering & ActiveX filter @ ROUTER LEVEL off/allowed, but JAVA applet filter ON!

(Those don't adversely affect facebook here).

HOWEVER - I block out "JAVA Applets" @ LinkSys router level, latest/greatest firmware too?

No facebook!

(Perhaps it's a typo in the LinkSys firmware? Doubt it... & perhaps that really means javascript? I doubt that, because when I activate it for say, ecommerce pages or online banking? Sites that NEED javascript, work!)

APK

P.S.=> I've been meaning to write CISCO/LinkSys on this in fact... perhaps today's that day! Thanks for your help/assist & time on this matter though (that's ALWAYS appreciated & what really counts!)...

Also:

Sorry for the delay in reply also!

Yes, the test took some time with all the browser options to reduce/turn off, & plus the router options to reset/remove/reset again, & work backwards UNTIL I found "the culprit"!

( & it was JAVA as I suspected, even though I had heard also that facebook does NOT use JAVA... odd eh?)

... apk

Re:Believe it or not? It's what I suspected (Java) by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 07:51 · Score: 1

Like I said, your router is broken. I wouldn't trust a router to mangle HTML anyway. HTML should be parsed in the browser, not the router. I want my router to give my browser exactly what it asked for. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re:Believe it or not? It's what I suspected (Java) by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 07:52 · Score: 1

I'd be interested, though, in a pastebin dump of the Facebook source code both with and without your router mangling it, just to see what your router did that broke Facebook.

Fair enough (2 each his own) & ON ROUTER issue by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 07:53 · Score: 0

I see, you do javascript coding which iirc, is NEEDED to mess with AdBlock (harder for MOST folks I wager, than hosts file edits)

HOWEVER/AGAIN - Hey... to each his own & I see we both use "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" methods too!

APK

P.S.=> NOW, per my subject-line above: THIS is the part I think you were waiting on MOST from me though -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38640864 ODD RESULT, but no b.s. here either... even I found it "odd"!

... apk

Router works: but this's way, Way, WAY ODD! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 08:02 · Score: 0

"Like I said, your router is broken." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @02:51PM (#38640884)

Oh, it works FINE... I like it in fact!

HOWEVER/AGAIN:

So far, ONLY facebook's presented this "issue" of ALL the 100's to 1,000's of places online I've been since owning this router (LinkSys/CISCO BEFSX41 non-wireless model) since 2006 or thereabouts.

Odd!

I've (as I said earlier) been meaning to write them on it, & I do use the "latest/greatest" firmware for it too!

---

"I wouldn't trust a router to mangle HTML anyway. HTML should be parsed in the browser, not the router. " - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @02:51PM (#38640884)

Well, I look @ it as yet another "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" featureset it offers... one I usually LIKE, except for this 'facebook' issue with the JAVA applet filtering in this router (which blows facebook, now I am 100% certain of it).

I will write CISCO/LinkSys with it, I have a definite testbed method for it, & yes, oddly even though facebook uses NO JAVA? I can't get to it w/ that option set ON to filter java applets in my router!

---

"I want my router to give my browser exactly what it asked for. Nothing more, nothing less. " - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @02:51PM (#38640884)

Well, we'll have to "agree to disagree" here - again, I look @ router-level security features as a "bonus" for layered security online (best thing we've got going today imo, especially w/ the web being "wild west days" still, imo @ least, security-wise).

APK

P.S.=> Good conversation, glad it did NOT "devolve" into stupid argument, & I appreciate your time/assist here too!

... apk

Re:Router works: but this's way, Way, WAY ODD! by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 08:12 · Score: 1

Oh, it works FINE... I like it in fact!
Its Java-blocking feature breaks websites that don't use Java. That's pretty broken IMHO.

Re:Fair enough (2 each his own) & ON ROUTER is by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 08:10 · Score: 1

You remembered incorrectly. AdBlock Plus rules are not written in Javascript. In fact, you don't have to write them in any code at all... there is a user-friendly interface to help write AdBlock Plus rules, as seen in this .png image.

The help tooltip for "Restrict to domain" even tells how to set up domain restrictions/exclusions:
"Use this option to specify one or more domains separated by a bar line (|). The filter will only be applied on the domain(s) selected. A tilde (~) before a domain name indicates that the filter will not be applied on that domain."

So basically the rules I posted could have been created entirely from that interface.

Note that it's saying that the item I originally clicked to block (cloud_64.png) would not be blocked by the rule. Since it's a third-party rule restricted to ~slashdot.org, it would only be blocked if a website other than slashdot.org or a.fsdn.com tried to embed it.

By the way, that was also one of your "20 points" in your list (the one you challenged me to disprove). You might want to revise it. ABP rules aren't written in Javascript.

It's HOW I test (worked 4 "facebook issue") by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 08:10 · Score: 0

"Quite frankly, if you "test" on browsers while blocking ads, you're not really "testing". The ads could break the page and you'd never know it." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @02:46PM (#38640834)

Aha, but that's WHY I test that way... I.E.:

To see if pages display correctly WITH or WITHOUT those features on/off (both ways, on/off, 1 by 1 usually, & in ALL browsers noted (Opera, IE9, Waterfox)). Just as I tested the "facebook issue" we discussed here... same laborious way, but works via "process of elimination" & only takes a few minutes!

* That way? I KNOW "how & where" ANY display of pages "issues" comes from + how/why from the security settings I use in layered paradigm (ala the facebook/linksys java applet filtering I found IS an issue).

APK

P.S.=> As to this? Come on man... we understand one another JUST fine:

"Whatever. Now if you could use sane paragraphs, nice, short, concise posts, and cut out all the annoying yelling (caps and boldface)... then we'd really be on the same page." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @02:46PM (#38640834)

That's a personal preference, so... I suppose IF you don't like it? Then, simple - Don't read my posts I guess!

I mean, hey - after all:

Posting on a forum? It isn't an english paper or grade for academia, or professoinal/legal correspondence, etc./et al!

( & style is "beauty in the eye of the beholder" (pure opinion, nothing more, but to each his own))...

... apk

Re:It's HOW I test (worked 4 "facebook issue") by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 01:29 · Score: 0

Unless you completely delete/purge your hosts file to "test", you aren't really "testing", because there's no easy interface to see what isn't blocked and what is (and which rule blocked it) like there is for ABP. It'd be a huge PITA to try to test anything if you used a hosts file for ad-blocking (or anything, for that matter, other than a browser add-on which can be easily enabled/disabled). ABP takes literally 2 clicks to turn off (Toolbar button, Disable) if you need to test a site with ads enabled. Anything you do with hosts is going to take a lot more work.

style is "beauty in the eye of the beholder"
"Beauty in the eye of the beholder"? More like, "a face only a mother could love".

Thanks (was told AdBlock WAS javascript based) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 08:19 · Score: 0

Isn't the AdBlock addon written in javascript?

See - I was told it was once is all (it MAY have been, that doc of mine's VERY old, been posting it for YEARS here & elsewhere in fact) - because I used to list the VERY point you noted as "harder to edit than AdBlock lists", minus what I was told that it was javascript based code in AdBlock (not sure if it IS, or not).

No biggie (I just use prebuilt rulesets it has by default is all) - I can make amendments where/if needed, but there's 19 other points in it that "stand strong" & are ABSOLUTELY, correct!

Thanks for the pointer!

---

"In fact, you don't have to write them in any code at all... there is a user-friendly interface to help write AdBlock Plus rules, as seen in this .png image" - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @03:10PM (#38641170)

Hmmm, I've never seen/used it, but I believe you (apps improve & what-not) & GUI fronts are excellent vs. manual work usually (well, not as "exact" imo, but they make it easy work on 'end users' non-techie types).

I will look around in it, in WaterFox (I use ADBlock Plus 2.03 & its "Easy List" here in FF variants).

So, lol, see you're reading my "20 points in favor of HOSTS files over AdBlock &/or DNS alone"!

GOOD!

(I say that, because you seem sharper than MOST I've dealt with here who were "naysayers" of the points in that list is why I state that, that's a compliment to YOU by the by).

So - You find further "issues" in it that are valid? I will correct them!

(Right thing to do - as I only get STRONGER by the doing of it, as does the document itself)

APK

P.S.=> Never a "wasted day", live & learn, PLUS? Now, it's time to write LinkSys/CISCO "tech support" & HOPE I get an answer on this java applet filtering in my router blocking facebook (odd as hell, considering facebook doesn't USE java!)...

... apk

Re:Thanks (was told AdBlock WAS javascript based) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 10:54 · Score: 0

The addon is written in Javascript. The blocking rules it uses are not.

ONLY facebook acts thus (of 1,000's of sites) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 08:26 · Score: 0

See subject-line, & now? It's off to write LinkSys/CISCO with the test methods I used here so they can test this model & with the firmware (latest/greatest) I use for it.

* I've been meaning to "get to the bottom of this", & today's as good a day as any...

APK

P.S.=>

"Its Java-blocking feature breaks websites that don't use Java. That's pretty broken IMHO." - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @03:12PM (#38641204)

Again, per my subject-line & 1,000's of sites I've gone to online since 2006 when I got this router?

ONLY FACEBOOK gets 'blocked' by the java applet filtering!

(Again - WAY odd! Now, perhaps it's something facebook loads from ELSEWHERE that NEEDS Java? Who knows... but, I truly AM going to find out, from LinkSys/CISCO themselves!)... apk

Got email? Here's 1 email of mine inside... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 08:33 · Score: 0

I don't "do pastebin" here (not blocked, I just don't use it) but... per my subject-line above>

Here's an email address of mine below!

That is, IF you don't feel like putting yours out (or you can use a junkmail one you probably have, I dunno - don't want to inconvenience you, but I "steer clear" of pastebin because the "Anonymous/Lulzsec" folks use it & dump stuff there etc. (Yes, overtime "paranoid" on that account here, but... better SAFE than sorry)).

* Please - Feel FREE to write me here with what YOU need, I will send it back for analysis (viewing "page as source" IF needed & sending it to you) -> apk4776239@hotmail.com

APK

P.S.=> THIS really MAY be of "tremendous assist" with the folks @ CISCO/LinkSys I imagine!

I.E.-> To be able to POINT THEM TO A SPECIFIC DISCRETE FILTERING PROBLEM in their firmware, if it IS one indeed (seems so), with facebook & their JAVA applet filter security feature!

... apk

As I said here in my 'p.s.'? That's opinion... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 09:04 · Score: 0

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38640524

Per this from you now:

"LOL, no, I just tried it out of curiosity and it does indeed look like utter crap if you HOSTS-block the a.fsdn.com domain. If anyone is curious as to what it looks like, and doesn't want to muck with their HOSTS file, just go to View -> Page Style -> No Style. Then when you've had enough of the unstyled HTML vomit, go back and select Basic Page Style to fix it. - by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Monday January 09, @01:20PM (#38639750)

REQUOTING IT HERE NOW, MORE-or-LESS "exactly" in its points in summation here now:

First of all? That's "personal opinion" & yes, you're entitled to it... but?

That may depend on what browser you use AND how you use it, plus what levels of "control" it has... Opera's allows control of really most ANYTHING in a page pretty much in its "By Site Preferences" AND "Global Preferences" I noted... complete customization @ ANY/ALL LEVELS, which is part of why I like it so much!

Me? I use Opera, which also allows me to use my own stylesheet!

(I do, & I have a custom css that filters adbanners, & a PAC file that helps there too)...

APK

P.S.=> See - I do a LOT more than HOSTS, AdBlock/NoScript (for browsers that have those, not all do), TPL's in IE9, firewalls in routers/software, & more... far more, for "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" as well as FASTER websurfing by far!

... apk

Thanks, fellow AC (got ya on specifics)... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 11:11 · Score: 0

However - Is it as SIMPLE to edit/add/remove entries as the HOSTS file is though?

* That's LITERALLY "take out ANY text editor & have @ it" easy!

(Well, as long as you understand IP addresses - to - host-domain name equations (& most HOSTS have examples of entries, edits, & what-not in them by default (Microsoft ones do @ least))).

APK

P.S.=> To each his own & whatever works... me? I pretty much use it "all" as far as "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" here, per this guide's points:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&qs=ns&form=QBLH

(Well, on "all"? All, except perhaps for running my OWN DNS server locally here)... apk

Re:Thanks, fellow AC (got ya on specifics)... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 12:55 · Score: 0

Easier, I'd say... no dicking around with making sure the DNS cache has been cleared or anything like that. Just copy the filter(s) you want to the clipboard, open the preferences (ctrl-shift-F) and click the category you want to add them to, and hit Ctrl-V.

I don't have 2 worry about local DNS cache... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 13:08 · Score: 0

Why bother "blow out" local DNS cache? Heck - just don't USE it, period, & save RAM, CPU time, & other forms of I/O too, by NOT using it! It's also KNOWN to be "faulty" with larger HOSTS files too. Is there ways of 'cutting it off' supposedly without downing the Windows (only Windows has this issue, Linux for example, doesn't with large hosts files)? Yes.

TO BE ABLE TO USE DNS CLIENTSIDE LOCAL CACHE SERVICE WITH A LARGE HOSTS FILE:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Dnscache\Parameters
Click Edit > New > DWORD Value (type) MaxCacheTtl
Click Edit > New > DWORD Value (type) MaxNegativeCacheTtl
Next right-click on the MaxCacheTtl entry (right pane) and select: Modify and change the value to 1
The MaxNegativeCacheTtl entry should already have a value of 0 (leave it that way - see screenshot)
Close Regedit and reboot ...
As usual you should always backup your Registry before editing ... see Regedit Help under "Exporting Registry files"

---

THIS COMMANDLINE BATCH WILL DISABLE DNS CACHE:

sc config DNSCache start= disabled
sc stop DNSCache

---

THIS COMMANDLINE BATCH WILL SET THE DNS CACHE TO MANUAL START (vs. default automatic):

sc config DNSCache start= demand
sc stop DNSCache

---

(Hosts files data is actually faster locally vs. remote DNS servers response/reply time (that MAY be potentially dns misdirect poisoned, or, downed even)).

* The HOSTS file's UNBELIEVABLY more versatile, overall, than AdBlock &/or DNS remote servers (even local ones) by a LONG mile...

(That sounds simple enough though, pretty much how you work with a custome HOSTS file, @ least with the GUI then - me? I use AdBlock in FireFox products, for "layered security" but it doesn't get SPEED like HOSTS can... I just layer on AdBlock with NoScript here in "WaterFox 9.0" (I used to load WOT & Perspectives addons too, but slowed FF up too much imo)).

For instance:

Can you "hardcode" in your fav. sites to resolve faster, & be proof to DNSBL's, DNS request logs, & get FASTER IP-Address-To-hosts/domain names faster than calling out to remote DNS servers (possibly poisoned etc.), ALL/EACH for greater speed by using AdBlock?

No, you can't... there's also a lot more HOSTS do that AdBlock can't.

APK

P.S.=> I do that for the 250++ or so "fav sites" of mine I spend roughly probably 90% of my time online on... apk

It worked 4 "facebook issue" discussed here by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 01:44 · Score: 0

"Unless you completely delete/purge your hosts file to "test"" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10, @08:29AM (#38649872)

I rename my hosts in %WinDir%\system32\drivers\etc file during tests (which forces a reload of it, & "blanks" it that way effectively, especially in memory/caches) - That's MUCH faster than "purging" it.

NOW - What you state also overlooks another area - internal browser block lists (such as IE9 TPL's &/or RestrictedZones, Opera's urlfilter.ini, & even Mozilla/FireFox browsers have them). I clear those with blank "temp copies" also.

---

"because there's no easy interface to see what isn't blocked and what is (and which rule blocked it) like there is for ABP." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10, @08:29AM (#38649872)

The ONLY "direct user interface" I need's a text editor like notepad.exe & it's Edit menu, Find or Replace functions, for working with hosts files directly that is, other than that, I have created programs myself for adding/updating/sorting/duplicates removal etc. to work with it "automagically" refreshing it here every 15 minutes from a PRISTINE temp/scratch copy.

---

"you aren't really "testing"" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10, @08:29AM (#38649872)

Per my subject-line above? Well... It sure seemed to "do the job" for "zeroing-in" on the issue in my router here with facebook & finding out it's a router security setting, oddly based on JAVA applets (& facebook, afaik & the gent I spoke to here as well, doesn't USE JAVA @ all - though I suspect a part of their website they REFER to OTHER WEBSITES for, may)...

APK

P.S.=> "Next"... lol!

... apk

Re:It worked 4 "facebook issue" discussed here by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 02:04 · Score: 0

Like I said before (and you hand waved it away claiming that Notepad is all you need):
There is no way to load a page and then view any sort of list of what could have been blocked, what was, and what line in the hosts file blocked it.
Did you look at the screenshot I posted showing ABP's blockable items interface? Frankly I wouldn't use anything else unless it had a similar easy-to-use interface. Using Notepad (or another text editor) to maintain a hosts file is stone-age technology by comparison.

It's automated here (via multiplatform Python) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 04:21 · Score: 0

"Like I said before (and you hand waved it away claiming that Notepad is all you need):" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10, @09:04AM (#38650192)

It is for most folks - editing hosts files = a snap! However, per my subject-line above? Mine updates here from 17++ reptuable & reliable sources, every 15 minutes "automagically", & from a PRISTINE "temp/scratch" copy (so even IF my real hosts is 'bushwhacked' somehow? It will be overwritten refreshed this way, perfectly, & clean) - it is alphabetized, normalized/deduplicated, & changed from larger-slower 127.0.0.1 to 0.0.0.0 for faster parsing line-by-line (since a smaller file results) + filtered out vs. "problem sites", & loaded from a TRUE SSD (not Flash memory based) off of a GIGABYTE IRAM 4gb DDR2 board. Very fast, less than 1ms access/seek & once cached into RAM? Faster still...

---

"There is no way to load a page and then view any sort of list of what could have been blocked, what was, and what line in the hosts file blocked it." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10, @09:04AM (#38650192)

---

"Did you look at the screenshot I posted showing ABP's blockable items interface? " - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10, @09:04AM (#38650192)

No I did not, but I did take a peek @ it in WaterFox (recompiled w/ Windows specific options for more speed version of FireFox 9.x) - seems simple enough, but? Again, it's ONLY restricted to that webbrowser (maybe a few others but not all afaik).

---

"Frankly I wouldn't use anything else unless it had a similar easy-to-use interface." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10, @09:04AM (#38650192)

To each his own, & whatever works for you (I have NO problem with that)... I just use the principles of "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" & "pile on" as many layers of defense as possible & hosts' speedup abilities tend to "offset" any slowdowns that MAY occur (not even sure if ANY do, other than parsing time taken up by tools like AdBlock scanning page content while operating).

---

"Using Notepad (or another text editor) to maintain a hosts file is stone-age technology by comparison." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10, @09:04AM (#38650192)

APK

P.S.=> Weaknesses of AdBlock vs. HOSTS files? Versatility!

AdBlock cannot (as opposed to hosts files):

1.) Speed up access to your fav. sites you "hardcode" into hosts (faster than calling out to remote DNS servers (that MAY be redirect poisoned OR downed))

2.) Bypass DNSBL's (privacy/anonymity gain)

3.) Bypass DNS request logs (privacy/anonymity gain)

4.) AdBlock's restricted to certain browsers only (HOSTS are global, for ANY webbound app)

5.) AdBlock doesn't cover external-to-webbrowser email programs (hosts do)

6.) AdBlock runs in slower less efficient usermode/ring 3/rpl 3, vs. hosts running as a filter for the PnP IP stack @ kernelmode/ring 0/rpl 0 (far faster & more efficient by far).

7.) AdBlock only blocks ads by default (& not even that, see below), whereas HOSTS can be used to filter out KNOWN malicious sites-servers/hosts-domains.

8.) AdBlock can be detected for (via webbugs)

9.) PLUS, face it: AdBlock "ain't what it used to be" per this article:

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option )

& more...

... apk

method for disabling the viewing of Timeline by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-13 12:39 · Score: 0

ive found a method for disabling the viewing of Timeline, if you switch your web browser's "User Agent" string to Internet Explorer 7 Facebook serves up the old style profile pages instead of Timeline pages. It seems that Facebook haven't bothered to develop a working version of Timeline for Internet Explorer 7
theres a guide on how to set your Browser's User Agent to IE7 here, and also fix some of the resulting display issues here: http://fbpurity.com/disable-facebook-timeline.htm

Slashdot Mirror

Facebook Responds to EPIC FTC Timeline Complaint

150 comments