Slashdot Mirror


EFF Releases Privacy Badger, an Addon That Algorithmically Blocks Online Trackers

New submitter zfc writes: Online tracking has become a pervasive invisible reality of the modern web. Most sites you load are likely to be full of ads, tracking pixels, social media share buttons, and other invisible trackers all harvesting data about your web browsing. These trackers use cookies and other methods to read unique IDs associated with your browser, the result being that they record all the sites you visit as you browse around the internet. This sort of tracking is invisible to most web users, meaning they never get the option to agree to or opt-out of it. Today the EFF has launched the 1.0 version of Privacy Badger, an extension designed to prevent these trackers from accessing unique info about you and your browsing.

136 comments

  1. How good is it? by Visarga · · Score: 1

    Should I replace Disconnect.me with it?

    1. Re:How good is it? by rvw · · Score: 1

      Should I replace Disconnect.me with it?

      Isn't Disconnect a tracker service itself?

    2. Re:How good is it? by joelpurra · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Disconnect.me uses a blacklist based on known tracker domains. Given that this blacklist based blocking only detects about 10% [1] of global top web sites' resources from third party domains (loosely defined as "not the same domain, nor a subdomain"), using heuristics like Privacy Badger is probably better. Either way, they can work together. Blacklists are convenient but easy to get around for tracker companies (for example by buying a new domain). Shared whitelists are convenient, but will invariably add too many or too broad exceptions too please more users, allowing tracker companies to sneak past (for example by using, by disconnnect.me, whitelisted cloudfront.net and other CDNs for easy forwarding/domain masking). Having a personal whitelist that you maintain yourself to your own needs is a good way to go. I personally use Matrix for resource whitelisting, with a stricter ruleset blocking all third-party domains by default. It's easy to whitelist specific resource types per domain (like css and images, but not javascript), I understand that most people don't care enough to bother though. https://github.com/gorhill/uMa... [1] I have researched third party resource usage and blocking specifically using disconnect.me's blacklist, so go ahead and check it out. [/shameless plug] http://joelpurra.com/projects/...

      --
      joelpurra.com
    3. Re:How good is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While we are on the topic of blocking malware, DoNotSpy10 is an essential tool if you are using Windows 10 to decrapify it of spyware and ads.

    4. Re:How good is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I use Ghostery, uBlock and ScriptSafe (a no-script thing). Would yours do anything over what those three already do? (Or do it better for that matter)

    5. Re:How good is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's so good that I've stopped using AdBlock and instead just have Privacy Badger and FlashBlock.

    6. Re:How good is it? by joelpurra · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not involved in the development of uMatrix nor Disconnect.me, I just used Disconnect.me's blocklist for scientific third-party/tracker research.

      • Ghostery uses a blacklist, so it's always running behind tracker companies. Plus, Ghostery itself is owned by an marketing company.
      • uBlock was created by the same guy who created uMatrix, Raymond Hill (gorhill), but Matrix is much more fine-grained for advanced users. (Block has been forked, and it looks a bit messy.)
      • ScriptSafe looks like a limited and messy version of uMatrix, and also seems to use some code written by Raymond Hill (gorhill). Haven't tried it though.

      Basically, I would replace these with uMatrix.

      --
      joelpurra.com
    7. Re:How good is it? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      using heuristics like Privacy Badger is probably better

      Now you are doomed. The hosts file army will obliterate you, all one of them.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re: How good is it? by Threni · · Score: 1

      On android, ublock handily blocks ads too. Not sure about messy; codebase? Once installed you don't even see it, it just works in the background.

    9. Re:How good is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's great! It doesn't seem to be open source. How do you know that this wonderful tool doesn't spy on you? Do you install yet another tool that detects if tools that detect spyware spy on you?

      Captcha: struggle

    10. Re: How good is it? by joelpurra · · Score: 1

      Not sure about messy; codebase?

      Sorry for using the same words in different ways that close to each other; in this case I meant that the forking seems messy. uBlock origin was created and is maintained by the original author, but the fork marketed as simply uBlock on ublock.org is not (at least not anymore).

      --
      joelpurra.com
    11. Re:How good is it? by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

      It's so good that I've stopped using AdBlock and instead just have Privacy Badger and FlashBlock.

      Sure if you want 3rd party ad services to install malware/spyware/etc on your system.

    12. Re:How good is it? by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Works great, been running it for about a year now and it shuts down the tracks hard. What I like is it gives YOU control over each tracker so that if there is a site you need it on just for a minute to say load the comments? you can do that. great tool.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    13. Re:How good is it? by dszd0g · · Score: 1

      And of course, some people are saying that DoNotSpy10 itself contains spyware in its installer (OpenCandy):
      http://www.wilderssecurity.com...

      It is not open source, and does not appear to be trustworthy.

      I think it is probably much safer to just follow instructions for oneself, like these:
      https://fix10.isleaked.com/#12

      --
      This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
    14. Re:How good is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VirusTotal says it's safe. A few AVs pick up OpenCandy, but OpenCandy legit and optional, unlike the Windows 10 spyware. Just choose not to install OpenCandy when prompted.

      avast! doesn't pick up anything malicious from the executable and TinyWall, the Windows resource monitor and Wireshark don't show any network activity from the tool.

    15. Re:How good is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OpenCandy is completely optional. I rely on quite a few programs that have OpenCandy in the installer, including:

      CDex, Daemon Tools, Dexpot, FreeFileSync, ImgBurn, Launchy, MediaCoder, Sigil, SUPER, Unlocker, uTorrent and WinSCP.

    16. Re:How good is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing that's immediately obvious is that PrivacyBadger won't block anything at first. And it may keep not blocking trackers for quite a long time. And every time you come across a new tracker you will again be unprotected.

      I know black- and whitelists have their problems, but I've been running PrivacyBadger for a while now and so far it hasn't blocked a single thing, not even very common trackers, so for the moment I estimate its value as exactly zero.

      The only way I see PrivacyBadger doing something valuable is if it sends the tracker data to the EFF, which then learns from it and sends updates back, in effect creating black- and whitelists. And letting the EFF pretty much track you the way an advertiser would, though I'd rather have the EFF tracking me than Google.

    17. Re:How good is it? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I've been using it for about 2 months. Now that version 1 is out, I will upgrade. I do prefer it to adbloc. It will require some manual settings that you must make to benefit from it. For example, when you visit a page, or a site, it will tell you about the trackers and provide you the option to disable the ones that you deem harmful to your system or to your privacy. By the way, once setup, for a site, it remains that way, until the trackers arrive with new names. That has not happened to me yet.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  2. What's the differenece between this and ublock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't ublock already doing stuff like? Especially when you choose/add your own filters?

    1. Re:What's the differenece between this and ublock? by Stan92057 · · Score: 0

      Ublock is not user friendly its not for casual users its for advanced.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    2. Re:What's the differenece between this and ublock? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      uBlock is extremely user-friendly. It's basically just one button: an on/off toggle. uMatrix is the extensions that's aimed at advanced users and provides both additional information and more granular control over what's getting blocked.

    3. Re:What's the differenece between this and ublock? by grub · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tip of uMatrix, folks. Trying it out now to see how it works compared to NoScript, AdBlock+, et al.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    4. Re:What's the differenece between this and ublock? by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      No i disagree its not. Tell me just what i should choose? And no the default option isn't and doesn't always remove what you want sometimes they keep coming back even after choosing the default option to block.Their is no way to report unbockable items, no way to report unblocked popups and so on. Sometime it blocks the whole site by accident why would a casual user know what to do to fix it except to uninstall it. What would a casual user do when given the below options?

      Click, Ctrl-click ##h4 ##.title ###comment_top_50269409 ###comment_50269409 ###tree_50269409 ###commtree_50269253 ###tree_50269253 ###commtree_50267595 ###tree_50267595 ###commentlisting ###commentwrap ##.d2incommentspl ###comments ###firehose ###content ##.col_2 ##.smack-refactor.container ###fix

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    5. Re:What's the differenece between this and ublock? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      uBlock isn't perfect (few things in life are), but the fact that it comes up a bit short in some areas doesn't mean that it isn't user-friendly. I installed it on my (non-technical) wife's computer two weeks ago and as far as I know she's had zero issues with it. She's able to browse all of her sites without problem, but now they load significantly faster and have a higher visual signal:noise ratio.

      Moreover, if you're talking about being persnickety enough to want perfect blocking and are willing to go so far as changing around options for a browser extension, then you're no longer talking about casual users, since casual users simply don't pull up the options for ANY of their extensions. Rather, if something doesn't work, they'll simply look for a way to disable it, which uBlock makes ridiculously obvious and simple to do on the sites it doesn't (yet) work on.

      As for you, it sounds like you may be better served by uMatrix. The first few days were a bit rough for me, but after that it only needs tweaking when I visit new sites, for the most part, and even then, not very often.

    6. Re:What's the differenece between this and ublock? by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      I an just fine with ublock. I said for casual users and i am sticking by my comment. We agree to disagree.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
  3. eff? I will try it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    holy crap, it said /. has 30 tracker

    1. Re:eff? I will try it by JRV31 · · Score: 0

      Does it block the NSA and other government low life pigs?

    2. Re:eff? I will try it by chewy_fruit_loop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ghostery blocks 6 from this page alone

    3. Re:eff? I will try it by davester666 · · Score: 1

      No, as they are doing a global 'man-in-the-middle' attack on the internet.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re: eff? I will try it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it doesn't and stop asking inane questions. Programmers sometimes do have a life and would like to keep it, thank you very much. Being associated with EFF may already be a mistake that only those who know will never have a career can afford to make. EFF = watchlist.

    5. Re:eff? I will try it by JSG · · Score: 4, Informative

      Privacy badger sees 7, no sorry, 8 trackers on this site (an extra one appears when you hit Reply)

      Been using it since it came out - very light on resources and does one job well.

    6. Re:eff? I will try it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you list them?

    7. Re:eff? I will try it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      partner.googleadservices.com
      www.googleadservices.com
      player.ooyala.com
      jadserve.postrelease.com
      b.scorecardresearch.com
      cdn.taboola.com

      are the 6 trackers that I can see using privacy badger

    8. Re:eff? I will try it by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It's an excellent add-on because it doesn't rely on blacklisting like other privacy blockers do. It simply looks for 3rd party hosts are seem to be tracking you (e.g. reading and writing the same cookies across multiple 1st party domains) and blocks them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:eff? I will try it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to RequestPolicy, this page wants to load from the following third party second level domains, even though it works without them:

      ooyala.com
      ntv.io
      rpxnow.com
      taboola.com
      googletagservices.com
      google-analytics.com
      gstatic.com
      googleadservices.com
      scorecardresearch.com

      It also wants to access amazonaws.com, just for the favicon, because clearly that was too much to ask from the servers behind slashdot.org or fsdn.com. The latter is the only "third party" domain which needs to be allowed for this page to work. I think you only got postrelease.com because something else slipped through (ntv.io or rpxnow.com?), and let's not kid ourselves, every ad server is also a tracker.

    10. Re:eff? I will try it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uBlock Origin with default settings blocked:

      www.googleadservices.com
      partner.googleadservices.com
      tpc.googlesyndication.com
      www.google-analytics.com
      b.scorecardresearch.com
      jadserve.postrelease.com
      cdn.taboola.com

    11. Re:eff? I will try it by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      Privacy badger sees 7, no sorry, 8 trackers on this site (an extra one appears when you hit Reply)

      Been using it since it came out - very light on resources and does one job well.

      I must be doing it right, I only get 4. Unfortunately, Privacy Badger doesn't seem to function properly - it tells me there are 4 but will never load up the list and several of the buttons are unclickable.

    12. Re:eff? I will try it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have most of that list marked as "untrusted" by NoScript, so RequestPolicy doesn't even report on anything other than gstatic.com and scorecardresearch.com.

      I've been trying to pin down scorecardresearch.com with NoScript for a long time, but nobody ever directly calls it. RequestPolicy blocks it every time, but NoScript never lets me add it to the untrusted list. They're the slippery-bastard type that I'm aiming to keep out, seeing as they've found a way to get around what NoScript will block.

      gstatic.com has some legit functions, especially on YouTube, so I don't outright block it in every case. But I sure-as-hell don't let it just run free, either.

    13. Re:eff? I will try it by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      Yep. My Ghostery says 7.

    14. Re:eff? I will try it by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Privacy badger sees 7, no sorry, 8 trackers on this site (an extra one appears when you hit Reply)

      Been using it since it came out - very light on resources and does one job well.

      I second your experience. Its a great tool

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    15. Re:eff? I will try it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also have Windows 10 working for them.

  4. 1.0? Current version is 2015.8.5.1 by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've been running this for a while now. It is a little strange they say version 1.0 has been released when the current version is numbered 2015.8.5.1 ?

    The fine article mentioned:

    Privacy Badger 1.0 works in tandem with the new Do Not Track (DNT) policy, announced earlier this week by EFF, Disconnect, Medium, Mixpanel, Adblock, and DuckDuckGo.

    Honestly, it is not always obvious that is actually working. I mean, sure, there is a red number shown how many sites it has blocked, but the actual useful stat is the options which lists ALL the sites you have visited that are tracking you: chrome-extension://pkehgijcmpdhfbdbbnkijodmdjhbjlgp/skin/options.html

    Maybe I guess that's the point though -- it just works in the background so there is one less thing to worry about.

    1. Re:1.0? Current version is 2015.8.5.1 by Dins · · Score: 1

      It is a little strange they say version 1.0 has been released when the current version is numbered 2015.8.5.1 ?

      "2015.August.5th.Version 1", perhaps? Just a guess.

    2. Re:1.0? Current version is 2015.8.5.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the version numbering scheme that they is meant to be read in reverse. Version 1 built on the 5th of August 2015.

    3. Re:1.0? Current version is 2015.8.5.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... lists ALL the sites you have visited that are tracking you: chrome-extension://pkehgijcmpdhfbdbbnkijodmdjhbjlgp/skin/options.html

      Maybe I guess that's the point though...

      I use Firefox you insensitive clod!

  5. And the very first mutha it detects... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is stashdot.org!

  6. Original Announcement @ Slashdot 14/05/04 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.yro.slashdot.org/st...

    2015 story has a new version.

    1. Re:Original Announcement @ Slashdot 14/05/04 by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      http://www.yro.slashdot.org/st...

      2015 story has a new version.

      Thank you, I've been running it since that story with Firefox. Looking for a version # I found that Privacy Badger has been on auto update (something I normally disable in any program) so not sure what version I started with.

      It's FireFox I only use it when I must and always as a gateway to my games.

      Privacy badger is ok, I wouldn't run it alone. I posted about Privacy Badger just a few days ago, /. shows 3 blocks others showed they had many more; I use a HOSTS file so know what's being blocked just not where (which site).

  7. Re:You way want to rethink the logo by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

    Yeah, this! Who could imagine, for instance, a leading commercial search engine replacing their logo with playful images and games every few days, to celebrate past events?

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

  8. Safari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More and more I'm thinking to retire Safari...

    1. Re:Safari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why haven't you already? I use a browser as much as everyone else, and there was nothing stopping me from moving to Chrome. And, since Chrome is spyware, I later moved to Firefox, and I was delighted there was not a single issue or reason I had to go back into Chrome.

    2. Re:Safari by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      One thing that annoys me to no end with Chrome is the stupid "status bubble". I hate when things move on the page I'm trying to read and having that stupid thing fade in and out every time I hover a link is just too distracting. And in typical Google we-know-better-than-you fashion, there's no option to disable this stupid thing and get a classic status bar instead.

  9. Re:You way want to rethink the logo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take the GNU/Linux Mint desktop logo, the one with the shiny 3D letters, and replace the wording with "Microsoft Windows 10", and maybe add a penguin or some other animal, and then consider if being greeted by this after installing would make Microsoft and their new flagship product look competent and serious.

    There is value in presenting your brand and your product as competent and serious, and FOSS have not the slightest fucking shred of an idea how to do this.

  10. Re:You way want to rethink the logo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is value in you shutting the fuck up and using something else if you don't like the logo.

  11. Re:You way want to rethink the logo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a dumb comment. What are you even trying to say, that we're not allowed to discuss things? Don't lose all your hair and get all personal just because you fail to understand the argumentation.

  12. Re:You way want to rethink the logo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck off Gnome 3 developers.

    https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/gnome-et-al-rotting-in-threes/

  13. How does it improve anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of having ads that can possibly interest you (I don't know, a one-day bargain on the video game you want),
    you will end up with a random ad with practically no chance to interest you.

    Not sure to see the point here.

    1. Re:How does it improve anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The point is not to give you irrelevant ads, that's just the consequence of the extension's real purpose, which is to block tracking.

    2. Re:How does it improve anything? by CauseBy · · Score: 0

      What ads? I don't see any ads.

      I always hear that question -- don't you want to see ads that interest you? Yeah, sure, and I've never seen one of those in my entire life, so I'm willing to go on assuming that I won't. It's not theoretically impossible but I have better things to do than worry about it.

  14. Re:You way want to rethink the logo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That article is interesting, but it's mostly about stuff being or not being hackable and customizable, and so it doesn't really relate to OP's point.

  15. Facebook an exception?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So far, every site I've been to that Privacy Badger informs me Facebook is tracking me, I am unable to block Facebook. As soon as I refresh the page, Facebook is reactivated. I logged out of Facebook (something I wasn't able to do before deactivation Privacy Badger on that site), yet this didn't help alleviate the problem. I'm using Chrome.

    1. Re:Facebook an exception?? by sudon't · · Score: 1

      It's probably their evercookie, (thanks a lot, Samy!). Try deleting FB's cookie. Watch it pop back up. You have to kill the browser to get rid of it. Plus, you have those FB "share" buttons on every web page, nowadays. Ghostery can block those, I believe.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

  16. Not bug free by ebcdic · · Score: 1

    Privacy Badger claims there are 67 trackers on this page, including ones from NASA and British Telecom.

    1. Re:Not bug free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trackers come in many forms, and you can't really stop them without software like this. If you think a tracker is on there in error, you can always override the settings. Just be aware that many organizations don't own every domain with their name on it.

  17. Poison the well by superid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd rather disrupt the whole tracking network by injecting false information on a mass scale to ruin the economic value of tracking.
    Are there any add-ins that do that?

    1. Re:Poison the well by Rob+Lister · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it is feasible but I kind of like that idea. What are the downsides?

    2. Re:Poison the well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, please!!

      For bonus points, shuffle their cookies around so that they all end up tracking each other, the wankers.

    3. Re:Poison the well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone would get a bee in their bonnet and try to press charges over "unauthorized access to a computer system" or something.

    4. Re:Poison the well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would install an add-on that did this. +1

    5. Re:Poison the well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, TrackMeNot (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/trackmenot/). Works on FF & palemoon. I've had it running for ages.

    6. Re:Poison the well by cbp2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I actually suggested this directly to EFF a year or two ago. Basically have some extension that lowers the signal-to-noise ratio to the point where you can't find the signal. There are problems with this approach, though. You would need to trigger a lot of extra network traffic to hide your true (intended) actions. Also, if you want to hide all searches/traffic, you'd have to have your extension do a lot of fake pr0n traffic, too. Would everyone want an extension that does that? And finally, there are lots of heuristics that can be used to sort out the real traffic from the fake "chaff" traffic... how you click on the links, how long you are on the pages, how you interact with the pages, etc.

      But I agree... I wish there was some automated way to poison this well and make it useless for trackers.

      The bottom line is that we need a better way to pay for the web content we all consume. Micropayments? Google Contributor is interesting. Advertising is ruining the experience, causing tons of unnecessary and unwanted web traffic, and is becoming ineffective with the rise of ad blockers. As long as everyone wants everything to be "free", we're going to have this tracking problem.

    7. Re:Poison the well by paul_metcalfe · · Score: 1

      AdNauseam is all about this poisoning of the well: https://dhowe.github.io/AdNaus...

      --
      Always read at -1, don't let others decide what you should and should not read.
    8. Re:Poison the well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The bottom line is that we need a better way to pay for the web content we all consume Micropayments? "

      Micropayments have many problems. putting aside technical difficulties, and even assuming that users will be willing to make payments there is still the problem of it never being enough. websites that take micropayments will soon think to themselves these are great but how can i get more. Eventually you will just end up with Ads again in addition to the payments. Just like Cable TV sold themselves as not having Ad's at first. they always creep back in eventually.

    9. Re:Poison the well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you had a centralized set of rules to generate the content of the tracking device (cookie, LSO, whatever), you could spam shit-tons of unique ID's into their system and make it worthless. How useful is it when every request gives them back a newly-generated fake cookie value at best, and at worst, an ID collision with another user? Not useful at all? That's the tracking ID of victory.

      You'd only need a central repository of tracker content generation rules and a client-side plugin to generate the fake tracker content.

      This is what an arms race looks like from the inside.

    10. Re:Poison the well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poisoning the well is a great idea. Turn off all the blocking on your browser and do visit some knitting websites.

      Let them waste their time and money showing me ads for yarn.

      Tracking should be opt in by law.

    11. Re:Poison the well by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      Any degradation of the quality of the 'signal' is good, and more is better but the noise doesn't have to really completely overwhelm the signal. Reducing the advertising value of the data by any amount would be progress, at least.

    12. Re:Poison the well by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      Seriously. I grew up with cable TV and then one day I was at a friend's house and he turned on cable. An ad came on and, even as a young child, I couldn't figure it out. I asked him, don't you pay for cable? So why are there ads?

      I never outgrew that, and I've never paid for cable in my adult life.

    13. Re:Poison the well by grumpy_old_grandpa · · Score: 1

      TrackMeNot is good to flood search engines
      http://addons.mozilla.org/en-U...

      AdNauseam is about flooding click ads
      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

      Flagger is more poking fun at surveillance organizations
      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

  18. Internet Explorer Tracking Protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Internet Explorer's Tracking Protection has a simple yet effective method for blocking trackers. Its Personalized List checks if a tracker appears on X sites, where X is 3 - 30, and lets you selectively block or allow the code. No blacklist needed.

    Combine that with disabling Flash except on whitelisted sites (Manage Add-Ons -> Toolbars and Extensions -> Shockwave Flash Object -> Right-click, "More Information" -> "Remove all sites") for decent security in IE.

    1. Re:Internet Explorer Tracking Protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft pls go.

    2. Re:Internet Explorer Tracking Protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, heaven forbid someone point out a useful feature of a web browser that isn't Chrome or Firefox.

      And, btw, you're wrong.

  19. Um, old news, and slashvertisement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been using Privacy Badger for MONTHS. How is this news?

    1. Re:Um, old news, and slashvertisement? by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      Version 1 of a product is the point where something changes from "pre release", Beta, Developer edition, Alpha etc to Live.
      I imagine that a lot of people here are familiar with using Betas - or even create them.

      Like you, I have been using Privacy Badger for a while now but now, it is no longer experimental - hopefully anyway.
      It should continue to update with time. Good luck to them.

      Advertisments, in my mind, tend to be for things that will make the producers money. The EFF is not asking for money for this. You do not have to look at adverts. Do they count downloads? Probably. Do they track users? It would make an interesting story if they did but I think they probably don't.
      Slashdit talks about new stuff. We might talk about new versions of Linux. That's not surprising. Someone might want to talk about the new #iShinyShiny thing from Apple as compared to his (more often than not) Android smartphone. People here like to slag off Apple. The EFF gets a more civilised ride.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  20. No on-off switch by X10 · · Score: 1

    You can switch Privacy Badger off for a specific page, but you can't turn if of altogether. If you want it to pause blocking, apparently you need to uninstall, then later install again when you want to resume blocking. I sometimes use "pause blocking" in Ghostery, which for this reason I prefer over Badger. Also, Ghostery has a switch for "block all trackers", In P Badger, you have to switch them on one by one.

    --
    no, I don't have a sig
    1. Re:No on-off switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Any decent browser will let you disable the addon without uninstalling it...

  21. Won't work by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 1

    First of all there are immortal cookies (infinite cache entries created specifically for your unique PC). Secondly, there's a unique combination of your web browser + OS + fonts + plug ins: https://panopticlick.eff.org/ Thirdly, there are unique patterns in your behaviour (websites that you visit and how frequently you do that) and other wonderful metrics to trace you.

    If you want to avoid being traced and tracked there's just one way:

    • You buy a single time anonymous SIM card.
    • You go to some public place where there no web cameras installed or you're not under their monitoring.
    • You browse the web using at least TOR, or even better a combination of VPN + TOR.
    • You use the most common computer OS (Windows 7 64), the most common web browser (IE11/Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox) and the least number of browser plugins and extensions.
    • You do NOT login using Facebook/Google/Microsoft/Yahoo/etc. services, because these companies trace your presence on unrelated websites using various "Share Me" options.
    • You do NOT use Skype/WhatsApp/Vibe other apps.
    • You completely destroy your browser profile and this SIM card after you're finished.

    This is actually a recipe for browsing the web anonymously however this is the reality of the modern web - not to be traced means to be anonymous as much as possible.

    1. Re:Won't work by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      It's not binary. It's not "tracked" vs "untracked". It's a question of how expensive it is to track you and how reliable the data is. Raise the cost and fewer advertisers will bother. Raise it high enough and maybe we can substantially damage the ad industry.

  22. I thought by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    There was an add on that would send bogus information to the trackers. If not, there should be.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  23. Wrong: In a 141++:1 ratio against you... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ciaran2014, mcmonkey, Artem Tashkinov, TheDarkMaster, Magnum7385, Lumpy, justthinkit, nimbius, fyngyrz, peragrin, MTEK, KGIII PhD mathematics, fustakrakich, Dwedit, UnknownSoldier, gl4ss, sootman, TestedDoughnut, TempestRose, lennier1, ScottCooperDotNet, Bill Dog, drinkypoo, Culture20, Rick17JJ, Ol Olsoc, icebraining, Trax3001BBS, fahrbot-bot, EdIII, bLanark, RocketRabbit, TheRealGrogan, Martin Blank, CAIMLAS, drakaan, Dynedain, Lime Green Bowler, Bob9113, wolrahnaes, raju1kabir, mrbcs, gweihir, frovingslosh, tepples, kimvette, Geeky, humanrev, maestroX, phrostie, ElectricTurtle, mattbee, VShael, AndGodSed, jafiwam, i.r.id10t, NeverVotedBush, falconwolf, BrokenHalo, orclevegam, cyberjock1980, gad_zuki!, furby076, jandrese, halcyon1234, Anonymous Admin, houghi, drooling-dog, dracocat, betterunixthanunix, someones, sqrt(2), cratermoon, bmo, fast turtle, Kris_J, SydShamino, Technician, pjkeyzer, srmalloy, schwit1, mrbcs, KingAlanI, ksemlerK, Scorch_, Mechanic, NealBScott, Anubis IV, crutchy, damn_registrars, couchslug, green1, wakeboarder, Gothmolly, lesincompetent, ls671, DigiShaman, P. Don, Yaa 101, qwertyatwork, dehole, Em Adespoton, CAOgdin, schwit1, MightyYar, RJFerret, idontgno, technosaurus, bemymonkey, wickerprints, noh8rz10, sexconker, sandbagger, NewWorldDan, Karmashock, aNonnyMouseCowered, Dracos, keith_nt4, networkzombie, jafiwam, JohnFen, SigmundFloyd, EETech1, duck_rifted, The MAZZTer, Anonymous Brave Guy, plasm4, holophrastic, Baki, StikyPad, kermidge, & APK (myself)...

    They're all /. users using hosts files on /. (that I know of, there's probably more).

    * "EAT YOUR WORDS", See subject, & get on topic, troll...

    APK

    P.S.=> Grow up, K.S. Kyosuke... apk

    1. Re:Wrong: In a 141++:1 ratio against you... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the top user and poster: Anonymous Coward

  24. Slows Down Page Loads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just installed this and used for half a day. It's causing a noticeably slower performance of page loads. The performance hit is noticeable, dare I say even more noticeable the slower POS computer you have. I couldn't post a comment on YouTube because it doesn't want Google+ to keep me logged in. As a YouTube content creator I can't avoid using YouTube or responding to my subscribers. I was kind of hoping they'd figure out a way to let me do whatever I want on YouTube but kill all of the Google tracking. I just turned it off for Google+. It's amazing how much stuff this extension is catching. Sometimes 20 offenders per site like Wimp, Failblog, Amazon, NewEgg, Weather, etc... Thank you EFF, you've obviously put a lot of time and effort into it.

  25. Not compatible with Firefox 39? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's hop with that? I can't install it.

  26. Something you already have, hosts, does this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: & a LOT more (see next link) - APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues - obtaining its data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community!

    * :)

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ---

    "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

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THAT WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

    1. Re:Something you already have, hosts, does this by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      Oh for fuck's sake not this guy again. Why can't Slashdot filter this bozo out?

    2. Re:Something you already have, hosts, does this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least it's on-topic for this discussion.

    3. Re:Something you already have, hosts, does this by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Not really, because it doesn't solve the same class of problems.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Something you already have, hosts, does this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect. You can block trackers served by host-domain name using hosts.

    5. Re:Something you already have, hosts, does this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2nd time here you're wrong on hosts K.S. Kyosuke http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    6. Re:Something you already have, hosts, does this by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      How can you block things with undesirable contents using IP level rejection? A single domain or IP address can serve both things that you want and things that you don't want.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  27. Seamonkey by blivit42 · · Score: 1

    Too bad it still doesn't work in Seamonkey :-(

  28. Fuck the EFF. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the same EFF that endorses and promotes a piece of software that violates Twitter's policies and terms of service by blocking people who follow people who other people deem as "not right-thinking individuals". Fuck the EFF and fuck those two-faced pieces of shit. They'll never get another dollar from me in support of a mother fucking thing.

  29. Ghostery works in Safari by bogie · · Score: 1

    Privacy Badger has no support for Safari which makes it a no go for most Mac users.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  30. I'm on topic, you're not CauseBy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Get on topic & If ANYONE'S a "bozo" here you.

    APK

    P.S.=> You're a loser ... apk

  31. Answer this question, K.S. Kyosuke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What it's taste like "eating your words" http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?

    APK

    P.S.=> Especially since you had to wash those words of yours down with "the bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT", ramming them down your throat with your foot since you STUCK YOUR FOOT RIGHT IN YOUR MOUTH? apk

  32. Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ghostery do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you by a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (e.g. stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory use vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on Ghostery doing all that let alone as well as hosts do!

    APK

    P.S.=> Addons do FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

    Addons add complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ClarityRay DETECTS browser addons like Ghostery & blocks them (not hosts) via native browser methods.

    What's better than ghostery by FAR?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk/b

  33. Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ghostery do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you by a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (e.g. stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory use vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on Ghostery doing all that let alone as well as hosts do!

    APK

    P.S.=> Addons do FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

    Addons add complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ClarityRay DETECTS browser addons like Ghostery & blocks them (not hosts) via native browser methods.

    What's better than ghostery by FAR?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  34. Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ghostery do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you by a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (e.g. stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory use vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on Ghostery doing all that let alone as well as hosts do!

    APK

    P.S.=> Addons do FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

    Addons add complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ClarityRay DETECTS browser addons like Ghostery & blocks them (not hosts) via native browser methods.

    What's better than ghostery by FAR?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  35. Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ghostery do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you by a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (e.g. stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory use vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on Ghostery doing all that let alone as well as hosts do!

    APK

    P.S.=> Addons do FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

    Addons add complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ClarityRay DETECTS browser addons like Ghostery & blocks them (not hosts) via native browser methods.

    What's better than ghostery by FAR?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  36. Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ghostery do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you by a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (e.g. stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory use vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on Ghostery doing all that let alone as well as hosts do!

    APK

    P.S.=> Addons do FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

    Addons add complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ClarityRay DETECTS browser addons like Ghostery & blocks them (not hosts) via native browser methods.

    What's better than ghostery by FAR?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  37. Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ghostery do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you by a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (e.g. stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory use vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on Ghostery doing all that let alone as well as hosts do!

    APK

    P.S.=> Addons do FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

    Addons add complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ClarityRay DETECTS browser addons like Ghostery & blocks them (not hosts) via native browser methods.

    What's better than ghostery by FAR?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apkvia native browser methods

  38. Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ghostery do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you by a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (e.g. stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory use vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on Ghostery doing all that let alone as well as hosts do!

    APK

    P.S.=> Addons do FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

    Addons add complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ClarityRay DETECTS browser addons like Ghostery & blocks them (not hosts) via native browser methods.

    What's better than ghostery by FAR?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  39. Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

    P.S.=> UBlock does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

    UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's better?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  40. Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

    P.S.=> UBlock does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

    UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's better?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  41. Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

    P.S.=> UBlock does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

    UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's better?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  42. Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

    P.S.=> UBlock does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

    UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's better?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  43. Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

    P.S.=> UBlock does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

    UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's better?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  44. Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

    P.S.=> UBlock does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

    UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's better?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  45. How much will it help when used with NoScript? by Bathroom+Humor · · Score: 1

    I only use Adblock Plus and NoScript, because I feel like I'd get diminishing returns from using 4 different addons for privacy and blocking bad traffic due to stacked redundancy.

    How much will this help me out?

  46. Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

    P.S.=> UBlock does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

    UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's better?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  47. Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

    P.S.=> UBlock does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

    UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's better?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  48. PrivacyBadger = ABP code & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can PrivacyBadger do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on PrivacyBadger doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> PrivacyBadger does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    PrivacyBadger's Adblock+ codebase 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    PrivacyBadger adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  49. Proof: privacybadger inferior adblock+ vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

    PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

    "Privacy Badger is based on the ABP code"

    (Nuff said...)

    APK

    P.S.=> We all KNOW hosts are superior to adblock variants from this set of proofs of mine nobody can manage to disprove validly/technically http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... ... apk

  50. Got an alert! My first one with PB, one years use. by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    https://www.robtex.com/ clicking on a disqus.com icon you will be met with a requester to abort and reason: "Logging into Disqus can allow it to track you around the web". Answering no shows what u had to post was not that important.

    My Post was to help, the IP address 72.21.91.29 shows over 100 pages containing malware (most I've seen) but it's a feed for the UseNet where Malware is expected and fairly obvious. Not a big deal.

    I took a back door approach to get a disqus.com account (through robtex.com) I had no ToS (privacy policy) to read.

    Post to Robtex.com can be posted without account, and how I will from now on.

    Was kool though, sitting unobtrusively all this time in the menu bar, when it tosses up an alert you take notice. The reason for Privacy Badger showing a plus, sorry but many just say a bad site ahead awaits u.

    That Disqus.com didn't make the HOSTS file? No clue, I dropped the ball.

    I have checked https://www.robtex.com/ while I found no Google links before, nor mention of Google in the FAQ (no ToS), the site reeks of Google (very nice, good useful info). It's no big deal, it's just http://testmy.net/ was Google yet they hid the fact, vs Flurry.com, it took some digging and many links from original ToS but you would find a Google ToS. A post reply was by one of the admins of how much they enjoyed working for Google, and I questioned the ToS; It was changed to a Google ToS; Changed now to: no clue (not read yet) but just assume Google and do what you do - I leave Google alone but for advertising, and data collection other than what I know (my choice) is going to be Public domain (my searches for one).

    FWIW https://disqus.com/ gives no alert.

  51. Re:Got an alert! My first one with PB, one years u by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    it's just http://testmy.net/ was Google yet they hid the fact, vs Flurry.com, it took some digging and many links from original ToS but you would find a Google ToS. A post reply was by one of the admins of how much they enjoyed working for Google, and I questioned the ToS; It was changed to a Google ToS; Changed now to: no clue (not read yet)

    Read, it takes a link from "Third Parties & Use of Cookies" in the Privacy Policy to show it is a Google site http://www.google.com/policies...

  52. Re:Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    Let me know when it runs in Windows 10 and/or OS X. Otherwise, you're wasting your time posting your copy/paste spam in response to me yet again. I'll actually take a look at it if I can run it on my home systems though, since I do like keeping an updated hosts file in coordination with the other ad blocking tools I use.

  53. Re:Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. host by sudon't · · Score: 1

    Yes, yes, we've all seen your spam a million times. Which is why it's called spam. Why not try to keep it down to one per thread? You'll come across as less of a lunatic.

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped

  54. Regarding this reply of yours to me... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My program does this for you (reverse dns pings) http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    APK

    P.S.=> Just setting you straight there (in its "speedup favorite sites" tab pictured here -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... for which users supply their favorite sites for it to resolve them properly for thus)

    ... apk

  55. Firewalls beat ip addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use 'em w/ hosts, using what you have already natively. It's all you need. vs. bolting on useless redundant inefficient 'moar'.

    APK

    P.S.=> You FAIL again vs. myself, as per your usual... apk

  56. Re:Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. host by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't prove him validly technically wrong though. Call truth spam all you like. You've failed against it. Even your posting 5 days after he did with you thinking others wouldn't see it and put your dumb ass in its place stupid.

  57. Re:Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let us know when you can write a better one or that you can prove his points validly technically wrong (never going to happen).

  58. Re:Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hosts are present and run fine on both Windows 10 and OS X.