Help EFF Test a New Tool To Stop Creepy Online Tracking

An anonymous reader writes "EFF is launching a new extension for Firefox and Chrome called Privacy Badger. Privacy Badger automatically detects and blocks spying ads around the Web, and the invisible trackers that feed information to them. You can try it out today."

Comments

Ghostery

[Anonymous Coward]

Ghostery does a great job of this already... However, the problem with these types of tools is they frequently break some type of (needed) functionality on the site.

7 caught on Slashdot right now.

Re:Ghostery

[CRCulver]

Ghostery is under a proprietary license and Evidon, the company that owns it, is involved in the online advertising industry. I trust the EFF a lot more.

FWIW, though, you can get many of the same benefits of Ghostery without installing that plugin by simply processing its lists through a Privoxy filter (the conversion is fairly easy to script and then automate), so Privoxy zaps all those IPs before they even get to the browser.

Re:Ghostery

[mysidia]

However, the problem with these types of tools is they frequently break some type of (needed) functionality on the site.

I imagine if any plugin gets /really/ popular, the tracking bugs will get modified so they work again, OR publishers/advertisers may start modifying their content to include tests to ensure the health of the tracking bug, before allowing the visitor to view content.

Maybe you just get half a sheet of text, or the first 1.3 windowfuls, then the site will pick up on the tracking bug being broken, and stop rendering content -- while displaying an error about the need to disable such and such plugin to use the site, or waiting until "countermeasure against tracker bug blocking" succeeds.

Re:Ghostery

[Sir_Eptishous]

This is why I love slashdot. I had no idea Ghostery had such a conflict of interest. Thanks for that info.
From WP:
"Evidon, the company owning Ghostery, plays a dual role in the online advertising industry. Ghostery blocks sites from gathering personal information. But it does have an opt-in feature named GhostRank that can be checked to "support" them. GhostRank takes note of ads encountered and blocked, and sends that information, though anonymously, back to advertisers so they can better formulate their ads to avoid being blocked.[4]"

What's the difference

[NapalmV]

How's this different or better than adblock / ghostery / flashblock / noscript / do not accept third party cookies ?

Re:What's the difference

[crow]

This monitors the behavior of web sites, not the function. So if there's a non-advertising site that just puts out tracking bugs, it will get blocked. If there's an advertising site that doesn't send tracking cookies, it won't be blocked. There's no blacklist--it's all based on observed behavior.

Re:What's the difference

[Mashiki]

Also, NoScript specifically breaks 3 out of 4 websites until you figure out which half-a-dozen domains must execute JavaScript for each damn website.

I think you mean website developers are so reliant on JS these days, that they think they can't write a site without such heavy use of it that sneezing at it will break their site.

Re:What's the difference

[sjames]

That's the best policy. The problem isn't sites using JS, it's sites sucking in random bits of JS from 5 otrhert domains that each suck in yet more bits from 3 or 4 additional domains.

Generally whjen I see that, I decide they're trying to convince me to just allow all witrhout seeing everything I'm allowing. That, in turn, tells me that that's is the last thing I should do so I leave the page and never go back.

Re:What's the difference

[Arker]

It sounds like a great idea. HTTPS Everywhere is a must have extension, and this looks set to join it. Thanks EFF!

And in a related note, both of these fine extension works fine in Pale Moon, but refuse to install in Seamonkey, which is a deciding factor in which one I am going to use in the future. I dont know why it breaks in Seamonkey but if anyone does please chime in. Is it just a matter of a bad compatibility check or is there more to it?

Re:What's the difference

[FuzzNugget]

It's not that websites shouldn't rely on JavaScript to function, it's that they shouldn't rely on *third-party* JavaScripts from jQuery, a thousand fucking ad servers, a plugin from here and there, Google tracking... that's why what should be a basic website takes forever to load: it's having to make requests to 50 different servers to load a single page.

JavaScript-dependent websites *can* be done properly. Most are not.

Re:What's the difference

[Nemyst]

I disagree. If websites relied purely on a single javascript block, then filtering out the tracking, advertising and other bullshitting scripts would be a lot harder than it is now, where most of the external scripts are stuff you want to block. You can generally allow the site itself (and if it's big enough, perhaps a CDN and another domain or two) and you'll get the site without the shit.

Also, hosting relatively large scripts like jQuery on their own, static path helps a lot for caching. You have one copy of the script for dozens of sites, instead of dozens of copies of the same file.

What's somewhat funny about it

[Opportunist]

Install it and it will show you a page where you can link to Twitter, Facebook and Google+ to tell people about how awesome it is.

Is that supposed to be cynical or ... I don't know, I find it kinda funny. Isn't it supposedly blocking pages like that?

Search engine optimization

[tepples]

Maybe you just get half a sheet of text, or the first 1.3 windowfuls, then the site will pick up on the tracking bug being broken

If a web server is configured to deliver only the abstract to viewers behind user agents that include tracking countermeasures, then it will deliver only the abstract to search engines. They tend to retrieve pages with no JavaScript, no Referer, and no cookies.

NAT and proxies

[tepples]

the tracking sites will just go to IP based tracking.

Good luck with IP address-based tracking when you have 10,000 different people behind one IPv4 address. This can happen with carrier-grade NAT, with ISP-wide caching proxies like those used by AOL and the ISP formerly known as Qtel, or with Tor exits.

Or did you mean the other kind of IP?

Re:NAT and proxies

[SuricouRaven]

Problem:
1. Man goes to kinkybondagesmut.com on his PC.
2. Seven-year-old daughter goes to ad-funded sillychildishgame.com on iPad.
3. Ad-network consult their profile and determine this IP address is currently in used by an adult male with an interest in pornograhy.
4. Family consults their local moral crusader organisation. Legal action is taken.

Does it block Piwik Analytics?

[EmagGeek]

Because this is the tracker the EFF has on the download page for "Privacy Badger."

Re:Does it block Piwik Analytics?

[Ford Prefect]

Piwik is a self-hosted web analytics package. In other words, your visit to an EFF page is being tracked by the EFF.

Re:Does it block Piwik Analytics?

[Anonymous Coward]

you guys are aware that scraping the logs of the webservers also gives you some overview of the usage of the site? Is reverse dns-lookup also considered tracking?

my point: monitoring your own site to make it better is fair use, giving this data to other entities is not.

Re:One example: Slashdot's owner, Dice Holdings

[PopeRatzo]

I'm guessing that most web sites are made by young women who fancy themselves to be graphic designers

Get the fuck out with your stupid techie misogyny.

If your "guessing" involves generalization to the point of an ugly absurdity, you should check yourself. You make it sound like you have a particular beef, maybe with a particular woman (or women) and now you believe that all bad web code is caused by women. It's a bad place to be.

If you want to say, "I have encountered some young women who fancy themselves graphic designers..." you would at least be on more reasonable ground, but then you need to ask yourself, "Does the fact that this group of people were women really have any impact on my statement?"

Now knock it off. People get skeeved out by misogyny and it's pretty easy to pick up on, so the next time you're looking for a job you might just walk away wondering, "That didn't seem to go well, it's probably because of that woman who interviewed me. They're all whores you know".

Re:Your response is about your anger, not about wo

[PopeRatzo]

I'm interested to know what theories other people have about the poor use of Javascript.

You mean other than, "Bitches, man, they just don't know how to code, you know? *fistbump*"