Facebook's Atlas: the Platform For Advertisers To Track Your Movements

adblock plus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 01:40 · Score: 0

Does this mean I need new adblock+ rules to block facebook from interacting with other websites?

Re:adblock plus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 02:55 · Score: 0

Ghostery + Request Policy + Adblock Edge (EasyPrivacy+EasyList+Fanboy's Social Blocking+Fanboy's Annoyance Lists) + NoScript + Spybot S&D Immunization

You can never have too much protection
Re: adblock plus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 03:55 · Score: 0

I find it interesting that you use both Adblock edge (I guess because Adblock plus has started to allow ads from some companies) and ghostery (which sells data to advertising companies and is actually owned by one).
It's like cognitive dissonance for browser extensions!
Re: adblock plus by BarbaraHudson · 2014-09-29 04:22 · Score: 2

The default for AdBlock Plus is to allow some of the well-behaved ads through, so that users who like to support their favourite sites can do so in an unobtrusive way. It's easy to change - there's a checkbox on the dialog when you click on Filter Preferences to allow / disallow this. It's a reasonable compromise, and if everyone used this to only allow ads that don't behave badly, advertisers and their ad distribution networks would have to make their ads behave better.
Blocking all ads, on the other hand, gives them no incentive to change.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re: adblock plus by KozmoStevnNaut · 2014-09-29 07:38 · Score: 1

Blocking all ads, on the other hand, gives them no incentive to change.
Good. Let the dinosaurs die in peace.

--
Eat the rich.
Re: adblock plus by RandomUsername99 · 2014-09-29 08:03 · Score: 1

Just out of curiosity, what's your ideal theoretical end-game once that happens? How exactly would people pay for servers, bandwidth, IT workers, content creators, site designers, site developers, electricity, the accounts payable and receivable person, the backup service, and the janitor?
Would you prefer to have all content be pay content, with pay-per-click or subscription schemes for all of the stuff you want?
Should advertising be so closely intertwined with the content that it's basically an infomercial? (Hope you love slashvertisements. They'll make up most of the feed.)
Should all free content be created and hosted by companies that have other successful businesses, and operate some website just for funsies?
Should all free content be donation driven, even though that barely works for an organization as visible as Wikipedia?
Should all free content be like archive.org and shoot for grant funding? That would significantly change the landscape of the free content out there...
Should all free content be amateur people hosting their own servers, hoping that it doesn't get so popular that they will have to pay a zillion dollars for their bandwidth charges?
How does that actually work, in the real world, where it costs real money to operate websites?
Re: adblock plus by JohnFen · 2014-09-29 08:31 · Score: 1

The default for AdBlock Plus is to allow some of the well-behaved ads through
I use the combination of NoScript and hosts file blocking rather than AdBlock Plus, so forgive my ignorance here... but what does the AdBlock Plus people consider "well-behaved"? For me, it would mean ads that engage in no tracking whatsoever.

if everyone used this to only allow ads that don't behave badly, advertisers and their ad distribution networks would have to make their ads behave better.
Blocking all ads, on the other hand, gives them no incentive to change.
Again, what is "well-behaved"? I can't tell which is which without analyzing network traffic to see which ads are reporting on me, so I must treat all ads as ill-behaved as a matter of self-protection, and block them all. Period. Without exception.
I simply pay money directly to sites I value, when they provide a means to do so. If they don't provide a means, then too bad, that's their loss.
Re: adblock plus by JohnFen · 2014-09-29 08:36 · Score: 2

Advertising would be OK if it weren't so intrusive (tracking counts as intrusive) and/or obnoxious. That people loathe online advertising is because advertisers have behaved so incredibly badly. They've dug their own grave here.
I am also old enough to remember when the internet had very little advertising. Almost all services were just free outright (mostly run on a hobbyist basis or as a sideline to an established business or educational institution) or you paid money. There was no dearth of content in those days. In fact, by many measures, the content was far superior to what we have now.
Advertising is 100% optional. Sites use it because it's convenient, not because it's necessary.
Re: adblock plus by BarbaraHudson · 2014-09-29 09:54 · Score: 1

Why not just go to their site. Or if you install it, you can look at the list of "nice rules".
Today's list is here. Just look for all lines starting with an exclamation mark - they'll tell you the intent of the following lines.
Of course, you're free to edit it to your preferences and restart the browser.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re: adblock plus by Soluzar · 2014-09-30 01:45 · Score: 1

I don't want ads. Therefore I'm not accepting them. I don't typically go around allowing people to tack additional nonsense onto the things I want. That's why my computer isn't loaded down with toolbars and dodgy search providers.
Re: adblock plus by Soluzar · 2014-09-30 01:49 · Score: 1

I'd actually be pretty happy to pay a small subscription to websites that I use all the time, and that seem to be worth it. Of course, there are a lot of websites that would die very quickly without advertising, and I don't object to that at all. They can go, and that is fine.
I think a reasonable subscription to a website I really like would be something like a $1 to $1.50 a month. If enough people are paying, that can easily cover the costs.
Of course I'd rather have those websites supported by voluntary donations. Lets not pretend that it doesn't work, just because Wikipedia are hopelessly greedy and over-ambitious. For many websites it can work fine. I know at least one for which it has worked for more than a decade.
Re: adblock plus by Soluzar · 2014-09-30 01:54 · Score: 1

I'm old enough to remember that too. I feel as though I may remember it differently than you do, though. In no way would I describe the content back then as superior. I would describe the primary content which we have now on the good websites as in every way a desirable evolution. Little things like advertising and malware don't detract from that, and I don't necessarily find the commercial content on the web a problem, as long as non-commercial content is also there. I'd be really glad to see a return to the days without advertising though. I can afford to pay for the content I want, if it is priced reasonably. Then there's the fact that some content is there because the provider wants you to see it. They won't seek payment for that.
Re: adblock plus by JohnFen · 2014-09-30 03:13 · Score: 1

Why not just go to their site. Or if you install it, you can look at the list of "nice rules".
Today's list is here.
I can't find where they define what constitutes a "well-behaved" site, but from the list you pointed me to, it's clear they we tremendously disagree about who is well-behaved.
Re: adblock plus by KozmoStevnNaut · 2014-09-30 03:16 · Score: 1

My ideal endgame is an ad-free world, but that's probably a utopian dream. A little while a go, there was an article about how much each Internet user would have to pay on a yearly basis for all ads, tracking cookes etc. to be eliminated. It was only a couple hundred dollars, I would gladly pay that to be completely free from ads online.
If advertising on a site starts getting too intrusive or annoying, I stop using that site, simple as that. Mind you, they'd have to get through Adblock, Privacy Badger, Disconnect, Noscript and Flashblock first. I see more than enough ads in the real world despite throwing my TV away years ago. It's my web browser and my eyes, I choose what I want to see.
I subscribe to a number of sites already, I don't see the problem with charging a fair amount for your services. Paying customers expect higher quality and are generally much better at giving feedback to site operators, a mutually beneficial setup. I also pay for services like Lastpass and Xmarks because while they offer something I could implement myself using Keypass, Google Drive and a host of plugins for my browsers, they make the whole process streamlined and easy to work with.

--
Eat the rich.
Re: adblock plus by BarbaraHudson · 2014-09-30 04:21 · Score: 1

So just click on the "block all" option. Is that so hard?

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re: adblock plus by JohnFen · 2014-09-30 04:55 · Score: 1

It's not hard at all, but it's even easier is to just use different methods that better fit my needs (and don't require further configuration out of the box just to plug holes intentionally built into the system.)
I wasn't criticizing AdBlock Plus, you know. I was just asking how it worked to determine fitness for purpose. I wanted to know what they considered "well-behaved". I still don't know, but I've learned enough to know that they and I disagree on the definition, since they include many badly-behaved sites on their well-behaved list.

Unplug plug-in by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 01:42 · Score: 1

http://www.abine.com/index.htm...

I'm sure Facebook is diligently working to bypass this attempt of people to maintain their privacy, along with all others, but it's notably better than nothing.

NEWS? by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-09-29 01:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Facebook tracks everyone, not just their users.

Install noscripit, turn off all scripts. Go to a popular website. It probably won't work. Start allowing scripts. Eventually, the website should appear in all it's glorious tracky glory.

Now look at how many trackers you've enabled. Now look at how many are from facebook.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.

Re:NEWS? by gstoddart · 2014-09-29 01:56 · Score: 4, Informative

In my experience very few of those trackers are actually required for the site to function.
If you're using something you can selectively disallow, you can usually get it to work no problem. If I can't, I leave.
So far, my best combination in Chrome is DoNotTrackMe, Scriptsafe, Ghostery, AdBlockPlus, HTTP SwitchBoard, and Disconnect.
HTTP Switchboard gives really good granularity and also does script and cookie blocking, plus several other things.
So far I've confirmed Safari has had the blocking of 3rd party cookies implemented incompetently, worked around, and never updated ... so that's the least trustworthy browser I've found.
Firefox has some good add-ons, can selectively block cookies NoScript, DoNotTrackMe, AdBlockPlus, Ghostery and Disconnect ... but I've not found anything with the granularity of HTTP Switchboard, so I suspect web-bugs can still slip by some of them.
I really wish Mozilla hadn't caved and decided not to implement strong blocking of crap ... unfortunately their desire for ad revenue trumped making a browser which could actually be made more private.
IE, well ... treat IE like the thing you use for work when all else fails. Because there's always another exploit around the corner.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:NEWS? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 02:05 · Score: 1

I do not know what sites you go to, but for me basically everything (the exceptions are in the low single digits) works with Ghostery on.
Re:NEWS? by unity · 2014-09-29 02:37 · Score: 2

"IE, well ... treat IE like the thing you use for work when all else fails. Because there's always another exploit around the corner."
Meh, I don't recall ever having much of a problem with IE. On the topic, there is a whole "tracking protection" section under IE accelerators. I block most all of it with these 4 easy to add addons:

http://easylist-msie.adblockpl...
http://easylist-msie.adblockpl...
http://www.privacychoice.org/t...
http://ie.microsoft.com/testdr...
Re:NEWS? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 07:34 · Score: 0

I really wish Mozilla hadn't caved and decided not to implement strong blocking of crap ... unfortunately their desire for ad revenue trumped making a browser which could actually be made more private.
So instead, you use the browser that sends what you type into the address bar to Google as a "partial search?"
Re:NEWS? by AnyoneEB · 2014-09-29 10:57 · Score: 1

As obnoxious as that is, you can disable that "feature" in the settings. That said, I mostly use Firefox because it does a much better job of respecting my privacy both by default and with more plugins for it.

--
Centralization breaks the internet.
Re:NEWS? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 13:57 · Score: 0

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy/

And this ... by gstoddart · 2014-09-29 01:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is why all of the browsers I don't use for Facebook do not accept cookies from Facebook, do not allow them to set cookies, and in a few cases do not even allow traffic to them.

The amount of embedded crap in every page you visit is mind-boggling.

Every company wants to link to Facebook and as a result, Facebook pretty much knows everywhere you go.

The only way I trust Facebook is in a heavily locked down browser, which isn't used for anything else.

And, even then, I wouldn't trust Facebook as far as I could throw Zuckerfuck off a cliff ... and then won't let me measure that distance so far.

If your browser doesn't have at least 3 privacy extensions, you're handing all of this information over to these clowns to collect your data and do targeted marketing.

Just deny them the information and the ability to meaningfully know anything about you.

I block every advertising and analytics company I can find ... and it's bad enough that Slashdot on this page as I type has scorecard research, google analytics, google ad services, and whatever the heck RPX now is. Fortunately, they're all blocked.

I miss the internet before all of the assholes who want to advertise, monetize, track, correlate, and cross reference. But I'm sure as hell not going to let them get any information I can block from them.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Re:And this ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 02:01 · Score: 0

That's why you'll see me as Anonymous Coward here: no Javascript, no cookies (needed for login: most web app designers have forgotten that you can design apps with auth *gasp* without cookies).
I know there are other tracking avenues, but I'm set to make tracker's lives miserable as far as I can.
Re:And this ... by Nauglamir · 2014-09-29 02:21 · Score: 1

The saddest thing is that unless you swap browsers, fonts and some other things around, marketers can still track you as "That one guy who blocks everything but is using lynx and has en exotic font installed" Also, I don't think a solo warrior is going to make their lives miserable. I wish designers would step up and just screw all the tracking, but hey, who hates money? :/

--
i *had* a low uid, but lost it in my lawn
Re:And this ... by slashmydots · 2014-09-29 03:07 · Score: 1

"If your browser doesn't have at least 3 privacy extensions, you're handing all of this information over to these clowns to collect your data and do targeted marketing."
I use a fake last name on Facebook and a fake birthday and there are zero pictures of me on it. You, on the other hand, are completely going about things the wrong way.
Re:And this ... by gstoddart · 2014-09-29 03:16 · Score: 1

I have a completely fake name, fake information which Facebook sees, and no pictures of me. I wasn't about to give them anything real. Almost nothing in my profile is true, and it will stay that way.
But I access Facebook from exactly one browser, which isn't used for anything else. It has exactly one web site with cookies set, and that's Facebook.
Ever other browser blocks traffic from Facebook, rejects cookies, and generally treats it as a completely untrusted site.
If you're visiting other sites while you have a cookie set from Facebook, chances are Facebook can tell what you're doing.
I see a very large amount of web sites which make callouts to Facebook.
So, in addition to your very sensible strategy of not giving Facebook real information, you should also be keeping tabs on what other contexts Facebook might be getting information from you.
I would guess that if you use the same browser to visit other web sites, Facebook is still getting the information.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:And this ... by mlts · 2014-09-29 03:34 · Score: 1

I wonder how long this will last. There will come a point where FB can't sell any more info than it is getting. Then what do they do?
I've found that FB is pretty intrusive, asking for almost every permission but root on my Android device. On my computer, it gets its own sandboxed instance of a browser (using sandboxie), while everything else is separate. On Android, XPrivacy and the privacy tools in CyanogenMod mitigate things. iOS is much harder to keep info away (although with a jailbreak and Protect My Privacy, it helps a lot.)
Re:And this ... by pkinetics · 2014-09-29 05:06 · Score: 1

Sell your demographic info to the highest Nigerian Scam bidder
Re:And this ... by Aram+Fingal · 2014-09-29 05:07 · Score: 1

I actually created a dedicated virutual machine for my Facebook presence (back when I had one.) Unfortunately, I triggered their bad behavior filters by using Tor. This is a known issue but I hadn't thought to research the use of Tor with Facebook before doing it. I could have gotten access to my account restored if I followed their rigamarole to prove my identtity (despite the fact that friends had tagged me in pictures) but I went of in a huff saying "I will not be treated like a criminial!"
Re:And this ... by Sir_Eptishous · 2014-09-29 05:46 · Score: 1

I couldn't agree more.
I use FF mostly, and have all the tracking blockers you've mentioned installed and configured to only allow what I deem "non-Big-Brother-esque". That means BOTH Google and FB are blocked. TrackMeNot, RequestPolicy, NoScript and AdBlock Plus are the way to go.

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Re:And this ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 05:47 · Score: 0

I do too. How dare companies advertise?
I don't mind that they advertise, I mind that the way they do it is blatantly violating your privacy. You get on Facebook, if you aren't blocking the bejesus out of it, and see every last thing you just looked at on the internet other than porn. Regardless, I'm not concerned about companies having access to my information. I'm more concerned about the implications this has for the government - who has been doing the exact same thing to us, I'm sure.
Re:And this ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 06:07 · Score: 0

Regardless, I'm not concerned about companies having access to my information. I'm more concerned about the implications this has for the government
When government can demand the data from companies, and you'll never know about it ... you have to assume if it's in the hands of company, it will end up in the hands of the government.
If you don't see the issues with having a private company have your information, then you're a moron.
If you think you're not getting screwed in this process, you're deluded.
Re: And this ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 05:32 · Score: 0

lol I don't think fb wit work with lynx, just a guess tho. ncurses Ftw

hmmm by jsepeta · 2014-09-29 02:01 · Score: 2

I'm feeling pretty good about having quit Facebook. It's more difficult for them to track me if I'm not a participant.

--
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.

Re:hmmm by gstoddart · 2014-09-29 02:14 · Score: 2

Think so? Because I don't.
Almost every commercial web page has embedded links to Facebook. Which means they're probably still tracking you anyway, they just can't correlate it to a specific Facebook users.
Unless you have a lot of privacy extensions, you might be surprised just how much tracking happens on every site you visit via web-bugs, cross-site crap, and several other things.
Simply not being logged into Facebook isn't really stopping them from getting at least some data unless you've taken other steps.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 02:23 · Score: 0

You'd like to think that, but it isn't. Their shadow-account for you might have some errors, but they can still sift a lot of data from everyone who ever met you and correlate that against the Facebook tracking cookies on any site that has a Facebook login or 'like this on Facebook' button (among others that are less blatant about it).
Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 02:28 · Score: 0

Luckily, among themselves, Ghostery, ABP, Noscript and Privacy badger kill it pretty well. And I don't use sites that don't work w/o FB, so ...
Re:hmmm by ArcadeMan · 2014-09-29 02:29 · Score: 2

If you once had a Facebook account, you still have it. And it will be there until the end of times* + forever.
* I'm counting parallel universes and big crunch/big bang loops.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:hmmm by JohnFen · 2014-09-29 08:39 · Score: 1

You don't actually need any privacy extensions to block the likes of Facebook tracking. A couple of entries in your hosts file does the trick.

How to escape Zuckerberg's peeping? by duck_rifted · 2014-09-29 02:33 · Score: 1

So, deleting my Facebook account isn't enough to get away from them. How long until we have plugins to block their newest tracking and spam network?

Firefox addon by dargaud · 2014-09-29 03:16 · Score: 1

What was the name of that firefox addon that disables facebook (and others) when it is embedded in somebody else's page ? While still allowing you to use facebook.com. I forgot.

--
Non-Linux Penguins ?

Re:Firefox addon by ic3m4n1 · 2014-09-29 03:38 · Score: 1

Request Policy

How can it trace offline sales to online ads by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 03:29 · Score: 0

How can they do it? When I buy something from a bricks and mortar shop (especially if paying cash and not using a loyalty card), how can they tell that I am someone who saw their ad online?

Re: How can it trace offline sales to online ads by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 04:07 · Score: 0

I'm not sure that they do. See, it's not about getting pennies or a dollar off of a purchase through referral. It's about knowing the things that you already bought or are interested in and trying to get you to buy more.
Think of it more like a personal edition of the New York Times with the generic ads replaced with ones put there by your own personal obsessive stalker. This is how most marketing dollars are spent.
I doubt it's about the trackable referrals as generic targeted marketing still rules the landscape.
Re:How can it trace offline sales to online ads by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 04:21 · Score: 0

By facial recognition using your profile picture from facebook

Bridging the gap between... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 03:33 · Score: 0

"bridging the gap between online impressions and offline purchases."

Actually, I'll bet it's more like "bridging the gap between our users' desire for privacy and our desire to make more money by shoving more stuff they don't want down their throats, giving preference to the latter, of course!"

meh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 04:35 · Score: 0

I don't see why they aren't already. All of your web activity is directly available to Facebook whether you're logged in or not, so that you see ads for things you've Googled immediately on Facebook once logging in. You may as well start seeing crap from Facebook elsewhere.

Firewall their IP addresses by knorthern+knight · 2014-09-29 05:11 · Score: 3, Informative

Depending which part of the planet you're in, most of your FB tracking attempts will come from one of the blocks below. Firewall them all to be safe.

31.13.24.0 - 31.13.31.255
31.13.24.0/21
IE-FACEBOOK-20110418
Facebook Ireland Ltd
IE

31.13.64.0 - 31.13.127.255
31.13.64.0/18
IE-FACEBOOK-20110418
Facebook Ireland Ltd
IE

66.220.144.0 - 66.220.159.255
66.220.144.0/20
Facebook, Inc.
THEFA-3

69.63.176.0 - 69.63.191.255
69.63.176.0/20
Facebook, Inc.
THEFA-3

69.171.224.0 - 69.171.255.255
69.171.224.0/19
Facebook, Inc.
THEFA-3

74.119.76.0 - 74.119.79.255
74.119.76.0/22
Facebook, Inc.
THEFA-3

103.4.96.0 - 103.4.99.255
103.4.96.0/22
FACEBOOK-SG

173.252.64.0 - 173.252.127.255
173.252.64.0/18
AS32934
FACEBOOK-INC

204.15.20.0 - 204.15.23.255
204.15.20.0/22
Facebook, Inc.
THEFA-3

--

I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user

Re:Firewall their IP addresses by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 06:10 · Score: 0

thanks for this insightful tip

Keep it up, Zuck.... by erp_consultant · 2014-09-29 06:21 · Score: 1

How anyone would connect to FB these days without running every privacy filter under the sun is just baffling to me. It's bad enough that FB tracks everything you do when you're using the app. But now they want to track everything out do OUTSIDE the app as well? No thanks.

I read with interest about new sites like this --> https://ello.co/beta-public-pr...

Ok...it's still in Beta, and it's invitation only so far, and the functionality is pretty sparse. But for people that just want to connect with friends without having every single movement tracked (even after they exit the application), Ello holds some promise.

Awfully nice of them by JohnFen · 2014-09-29 08:25 · Score: 1

Atlas' website kindly lists all of the companies currently using Atlas. I'm pleased, because now I have a much more complete list of which services to completely avoid.

Nice! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 08:54 · Score: 0

Thanks! I've already made $16021 in just 4 hours

Facebook... privacy...concerns,,, by Kittenman · 2014-09-29 09:27 · Score: 1

privacy... concerns... facebook...

Swap these words around for a well-worn Slashdot article (bonus if you score two hits in a day)

--
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill

AdBlock = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 12:18 · Score: 0

My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o...

---

A.) Hosts do more than:

1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

D.) Hosts files yield more:

1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

---

* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

...apk

Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 12:20 · Score: 0

Can adblock do the following 15 things (that custom hosts files can):

1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources

"?"

* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

APK

P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

... apk

Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 12:22 · Score: 0

W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

APK

P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

Ghostery & AdBlock = Inferior + 'Souled-Out' by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 12:27 · Score: 0

My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o...

---

A.) Hosts do more than:

1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

D.) Hosts files yield more:

1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

---

* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

...apk http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 12:28 · Score: 0

Can adblock do the following 15 things (that custom hosts files can):

1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources

"?"

* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

APK

P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

... apk

Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 12:30 · Score: 0