Slashdot Mirror


Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites Are Leaking Your Data

merbs writes: The vast majority of websites you visit are sending your data to third-party sources, usually without your permission or knowledge. That's not exactly breaking news, but the sheer scale and ubiquity of that leakage might be. Tim Libert, a privacy researcher, has published new peer-reviewed research that sought to quantify all the "privacy compromising mechanisms" on the one million most popular websites worldwide. His conclusion? "Findings indicate that nearly 9 in 10 websites leak user data to parties of which the user is likely unaware."

133 comments

  1. The very act of being on the internet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... requires you reveal information. The laws of physics aren't going to change for anyone.

    1. Re:The very act of being on the internet... by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I'm 40 to 50 percent of the way (at least; it's a conservative estimate) towards just not using the Internet for anything, anymore, for that very reason. Even using an alias (as I do here), I know that at the very least my ISP can put together enough to track everywhere I go and everything I do, assuming they break all the rules, decrypt https, etc. Of course we now live in a world where, if you go too far off the grid (remove your Internet presence, start paying in cash for everything instead of using plastic) you trigger all sorts of three-letter agency attention that you don't want, because it's now considered a sign of possible criminal activity if you actually have the gall to protect your privacy.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    2. Re:The very act of being on the internet... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      I thought the point of https was that isps and others could not decrypt it?

    3. Re:The very act of being on the internet... by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

      The other option is to mass-pollute the data. Create an App that sends off dummy web requests from your device so that no matter who is tracking, their data is useless.

    4. Re:The very act of being on the internet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You know.../. tracks the fuck out of you. Try sSoylentnews.org (the Red site). No trackers. period. The people are nice, informed, and decisions are made on a community level.

    5. Re:The very act of being on the internet... by buswolley · · Score: 3, Informative

      https://soylentnews.org/

      Your privacy matters
      Your community matters
      No trackers. Period.
      also note: https

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    6. Re:The very act of being on the internet... by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      My impression was ISPs didn't look at much data because they potentially lose the safe harbor protections for copyright and other criminal acts their customers might engage in, but with some of the monitoring of usage type the lines may be a little blurred.
      Has this changed in some meaningful way?

    7. Re:The very act of being on the internet... by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      you trigger all sorts of three-letter agency attention that you don't want, because it's now considered a sign of possible criminal activity if you actually have the gall to protect your privacy.

      This. People are considered criminals and engaging in suspicious activity if they try to arrange their lives so people can't develop dossiers on them, attach derogatory information on whim and then share that dossier with just anyone.

      That's insane.

      Ask anyone from any dictatorship - and I have- especially read history how democracies turn into dictatorships. It all starts with lists. Lists of people and their supposed attrtibutes and governments encouraging people to turn each other in.

      This is exactly what went down in Iraq. Iraqis used the US government's hunger for terorists as an opportunity to get even. A lot of the people arrested and jailed and some tortured did nothing more wrong than be distateful in some way to their neighbor. Other's had ho-hum run of the mill grudges that they'd been nursing.

      But it all gets written down and once it's written down, it's true to the next guy who read the dossier.

    8. Re:The very act of being on the internet... by webatxcent · · Score: 1

      I read an article at least a year ago the subject of which was that some ISPs were experimenting with the notion of Institutional man-in-the-middle attacks for the purpose of compressing communications for greater throughput. So carriers such as Verizon could conceivably be proxying HTTPS from one POP to another.

    9. Re: The very act of being on the internet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know for sure that the anti virus products sold to the government do deep packet inspection of encrypted packets.

  2. wrong term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not leaking it so much as shooting out of a firehouse.

    1. Re:wrong term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HaHa If I had modding points, you'd a had em.

      I've seen some UK news sites open up fifty or more connections for the marketers. That's enough pressure for a five alarm fire on a tall building.

    2. Re:wrong term by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      leaking also would indicate that it is unintentional. the websites are mainly leaking through ad networks and are doing it on purpose to get money(or analytics).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  3. Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites... by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

    ... don't have my data.

  4. TLD's -- NOT SITES by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    Just skimmed the paper -- and it's talking about the "10 most common top-level domains" -- not websites.

    1. Re:TLD's -- NOT SITES by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      That's not what the paper says, they aren't saying that .com is tracking you or leaking your data. It says that they ran their numbers on the entire pool of ~1 million sites, and then ran sub-analysis for the 10 most popular TLDs (plus edu and gov) - com, net, org, ru, de, uk, br, jp, pl, and in. Table 1 in the PDF shows those findings. For the entire data set, 9.47 external domains were contacted on average. Among those TLDs, Brazil had the highest with 11 domains on average, and gov the lowest with 3.61. India was 10.35 and both com and net were 10.2.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:TLD's -- NOT SITES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just skimmed the paper -- and it's talking about the "10 most common top-level domains" -- not websites.

      You must have misread paragraph 2 of section 6.1

  5. Gomer says surprise 3 times by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    Once the data became a, and sometimes the, marketable commodity, what did you think for-profit companies might do?

    It was clearly not a long-contemplated ethical conundrum for the bigger share of them.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  6. Surprising news! by hey! · · Score: 2

    One out of ten of the Internet's top web sites doesn't leak your information!

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Surprising news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that I'm not a social networking whore, I'm less worried since I likely am not using sites to start with.
      Just another tick in the ol' "why not to Facebook" list.

    2. Re:Surprising news! by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I want to know which one of the 10 is it?

      Actually, what the researcher says is that 9 out of 10 websites leak information about who visits them to third parties, but if you think about it, ANY site that accepts banner ads does this... So if you are surprised by this revelation, I feel sorry for you..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Surprising news! by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      Given that I'm not a social networking whore, I'm less worried since I likely am not using sites to start with.

      That doesn't matter. If you go to 10 sites and all of them tell your browser to contact Facebook for some Javascript API, then Facebook knows that your browser visited those 10 sites. If you then identify yourself on any of those sites, like logging in to Amazon or Newegg or whatever, then now they know who you are (or at least who is using that browser) and can match that up with their database to know which sites you've visited and what else you've done online. You don't need a Facebook account for that to work, you only need to log in and identify yourself on any "partner" site for the whole network to know who you are. This isn't a reason to not use sites like Facebook or Twitter, it is a reason to use plugins like Ghostery to stop that communication from happening in the first place. Just tell your browser that it's not allowed to contact those sites to download their trackers and beacons, and watch how page load speed increases after that.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:Surprising news! by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      I want to know which one of the 10 is it?

      It's roughly 10% of the top 950,000 sites.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    5. Re:Surprising news! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      That doesn't matter. If you go to 10 sites and all of them tell your browser to contact Facebook for some Javascript API, then Facebook knows that your browser visited those 10 sites.

      That's what script disabling is for. Certainly the number of tracker scripts FB has is impressive. And the site better be damn good for me to turn them off. Something like Sophia Vergara taking a shower maybe. Other than that, if I can't see their ads or content, its their loss - not mine.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:Surprising news! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I want to know which one of the 10 is it?

      I'm guessing Wikipedia.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:Surprising news! by martinfb · · Score: 1

      - YET! A little time and it'll be hacked!

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  7. oh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ghostery, noscript, three adblockers, running on a browser in a cloned linux VM instance

    i'd say i've got a bunch of them blocked, confused, or downright off. maybe not all, but it's better than 7 boxxies

    1. Re: oh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they all go through separate VPN s too?

  8. Not Without Your Knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch what your browser is doing and where its going. Better yet, install NoScript. My rule is that if a site links to unrelated ones, I don't bother going there.

    Short answer - Internet sheeple are Internet sheeple anyway.

    1. Re:Not Without Your Knowledge by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      extending this... I haven't seen this mentioned on the thread to-date. Some browsers have features to help protect your privacy. Safari and Firefox have a setting to block cookies from third-party sites. So if you visit amazon.com and login, the site can put a login cookie on your computer, but you won't get third-party trackers from omg.zzoba321.gov.co.ru.in.

      I'm not going name names, but some browsers notably omit this function, possibly because the browser's developer makes all its money from tracking peoples behavior...

  9. Wait! Wait! I have a solution! by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

    Stop typing your own fucking personal information into websites! It's not like they're kicking in your door and raiding your house. STOP HANDING IT TO THEM!

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Wait! Wait! I have a solution! by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

      You need to shut the fuck up. We won't tolerate common repeated sense in this forum. Consider your karma ultra negative from this point forward.

    2. Re:Wait! Wait! I have a solution! by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Some ARE kicking down the door.... But we usually call that malware and viruses..

      Personally, I hand out "personal information" for a person who is totally fiction beyond the name to any website who requires I give up information to them and I still want to use their website. There are exceptions, of course, but I only share what is required and stick to the identity I invented as much as possible.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Wait! Wait! I have a solution! by dmomo · · Score: 1

      If you think that the data they are collecting is predominantly a result of things being typed into a form... you have no business acting so self-righteous. Instead, you should step back and re-think what privacy is, and how it pertains to the Internet.

    4. Re:Wait! Wait! I have a solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Some data is public, but the vast majority of it is entered by the user. Who in hell actually puts their real birthdate into a web site? Birthdate, Gender, and Zip Code are enough to uniquely identify 85% of targets. Don't accept cookies, don't enter non-public data, and don't accept ads/script. It's not that hard, really.

    5. Re:Wait! Wait! I have a solution! by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      If you think that the data they are collecting is predominantly a result of things being typed into a form... you have no business acting so self-righteous. Instead, you should step back and re-think what privacy is, and how it pertains to the Internet.

      Erm, privacy is fucking pulling down the curtains to cock-block anybody getting information that I do not want them to have?

      I'm not being self righteous at all - I'm being a master of my own fucking information. Please master yours, or stop bitching about your loss of privacy. If you want to sell your info to get an app, have a nut, but don't bitch if you sold out yourself for a new shiny app.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    6. Re:Wait! Wait! I have a solution! by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 1

      Don't have to give out personal information...

      For example go to TireRack (don't log in), look for tires for your car, then come to Slashdot (don't log in), and the first ad you see is an ad for the tires you just looked at on TireRack. Gee either someone is looking at cookies that they shouldn't be or both sites use the same analytics engine and that engine is tracking you across the sites.

    7. Re:Wait! Wait! I have a solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't have to give out personal information...

      Yeah, you just have to re-define "personal" information to include public activity.

    8. Re:Wait! Wait! I have a solution! by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      ok if your an internet engineer than you undestand that the vast majority of internet data mining is tracking footsteps and breadcrumbs as people travel aroudn the internet and interact with sites, then doing various cross correlations and linking to find insights into what products these people may buy, then showing them ads for this product? And you understand that info about you is leaked by your browser, your computer, your IP address, and your IP?

      So even if a user never types in a single thing, lots of info is logged, enought to

    9. Re:Wait! Wait! I have a solution! by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      So even if a user never types in a single thing, lots of info is logged, enought to

      Oh God, the internet demons got him. Fuck. They're probably anally probing him as we speak in Guantanamo. Bastards! Life isn't fair.

      So, as I said, don't put your personal shit out on the web, or you'll get butt-probed at Guantanamo. Just like Noah.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    10. Re:Wait! Wait! I have a solution! by dead_user · · Score: 1

      I always wondered, according to the sites that required a birth date be filled in, what percentage of the world's population was born on January 1st?

    11. Re:Wait! Wait! I have a solution! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      So, as I said, don't put your personal shit out on the web

      The point is that, short of logging off entirely and becoming a luddite hermit, it's incredibly hard to actually accomplish that! I have literally six different anti-tracking browser extensions going (BetterPrivacy, Lightbeam, RefControl, RequestPolicy, Self-Destructing Cookies and uBlock), and whitelisting cross-site requests extremely judiciously, and I still doubt I'm stopping all the tracking!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  10. But think of the by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Code that just still works as it was never updated.
    The heat saved, the cooling not needed as the intensive new encryption was not turned up.
    The cash saved in not having expert staff add new encryption that only modern browsers could really use.
    All that tracking adds to deeper understanding of the consumers and earns a profit.

    All a browser can do is load up on the more useful add ons to try and block most of the more direct site based tracking.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  11. Vice is terrible by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2

    Here is an alternate link that won't feed Vice and here is the linked article. (pdf) The study is very broad but they consider as much as a Google tracking cookie to be "leaking your data", so it doesn't really say much.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re: Vice is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, Google is the worst offender, so yeah...Google cookies are number one in bad

    2. Re:Vice is terrible by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      they consider as much as a Google tracking cookie to be "leaking your data"

      Well it is, so they're right. Shit man, it's right there in the name. It's not the Google Friendly Cookie, it's not the Google Helpful Cookie, it's not the goddamned Google Blowjob Cookie. It's tracking you. It's the very definition of leaking your data. Maybe what you're confused about is the definition of "your data". Hint: "your data" includes where you go online.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re: Vice is terrible by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      , Google is the worst offender, so yeah...Google cookies are number one in bad

      Facebook is the worst offender. Google is number 2. Maybe number 3 depending on where you place Amazon

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re: Vice is terrible by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      From TFA:

      "The worst perpetrator is Google, which tracks people on nearly 80 percent of sites, and does not respect DNT signals,"

      From the paper:

      While there are a number of companies tracking users online, the overall landscape is highly consolidated, with the top corporation, Google, tracking users on nearly eight of ten sites in the Alexa top one million.

      and:

      That said, half of the top ten images belong to Google, including the most requested image, the Google Analytics tracking pixel. This image is found on 46.02% of sites, is only 1x1 pixels large, and is utilized solely for tracking purposes.

      and:

      The most striking finding of this study is that 78.07% of websites in the Alexa top million initiate third-party HTTP requests to a Google-owned domain. While the competitiveness of Google is well known in search, mobile phones, and display advertising, its reach in the web tracking arena is unparalleled. The next company, Facebook, is found on a still significant 32.42% of sites, followed by Akamai (which hosts Facebook and other companies' content) on 23.31% of sites, Twitter with 17.89%, comScore with 11.98%, Amazon with 11.72%, and AppNexus with 11.7%.

      There's also this little nugget:

      More specifically, internal NSA documents leaked to the Post by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed that a Google cookie named "PREF" was being used to track targets online. Additional documents provided to The Guardian by Snowden detailed that another Google cookie (DoubleClick's "id"), was also used by the NSA; in this case to attempt to compromise the privacy of those using anonymity-focused Tor network [19].

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    5. Re: Vice is terrible by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I just saw your username. It's kind of ironic.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    6. Re: Vice is terrible by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      From TFA:

      "The worst perpetrator is Google, which tracks people on nearly 80 percent of sites, and does not respect DNT signals,"

      That's the most prevelent. That does not necessarily mean the worst. It especially does not mean the worst when you say that "the worst is on most of the sites", implying that there is some other dimension to consider.

      It's hard for me to imagine anyone thinking Facebook's collection of data isn't creepier than Google's.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re: Vice is terrible by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Oh, you're talking about the unquantifiable "creepy factor" when you use the term "worst". I assumed you were referring to the data set in TFA.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    8. Re: Vice is terrible by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Well, that's because GP talked about how Google was most prevalent and also worst. It's redundant if you use TFA's data set to define worst as more prevalent.

      And, frankly, Facebook is creepy because it's so much more prevalent than Google. Websites tracking me is just a much lower concern than turning all my friends into unpaid informants on my actions.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  12. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by bobbied · · Score: 1

    ... don't have my data.

    And you think Slashdot doesn't share it for some reason? Don't give me this "they didn't say they would share" excuse...

    If you do ANYTHING on the big "I" net, you are giving up information, like it or not... It's worse for you, you are posting on Slashdot for Pete's sake....

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  13. Howsabout Slashdot? by Chas · · Score: 2

    Especially with your mobile site with three rows of full-page-height (at 1920x1200 even) ads and a script popping an ad at the bottom that's almost comically impossible to retract?

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Howsabout Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially with your mobile site with three rows of full-page-height (at 1920x1200 even) ads and a script popping an ad at the bottom that's almost comically impossible to retract?

      Slashdot's mobile site is so broken that it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

  14. That's not true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's impossible!!!

  15. All reported on by Holi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All reported on a site with links to Facebook Pinterest, Twitter, Tumblr, YouTube, and is most definitely using Google Analytics.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    1. Re:All reported on by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ghostery blocked the following on motherboard.vice.com:

      Alexa Metrics
      ChartBeat
      Facebook Connect
      Google Ajax Search API
      Google Analytics
      Google+ Platform
      Krux Digital
      Netratings Sitecensus
      Pinterest
      Quantcast
      Sailthru Horizon
      Scorecard Research Beacon
      Twitter Button

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:All reported on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are the easy ones to spot but there are others you likely don't think about. I went to a certain popular auto parts store to buy a wheel barring a week ago. Used my card for the store which is linked against the same email I use for YouTube. I got home, tossed the wheel barring on then sat down to watch some videos on YouTube to find it was recommending videos on how to change a wheel barring on my specific model of car. That store's website has absolutely no links to the social media pages, their help section is pretty much scans of repair manuals. Yet I learned just how fast they share their data with YouTube. For a time frame, it only took 20 minutes to change the wheel barring and the store was maybe 5 minutes away. So half hour for it to begin making recommendations but I wouldn't be surprised if it was much faster; I didn't even look at YouTube since I've done enough wheel barrings to know it by heart.

    3. Re:All reported on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, most of those are just links to repost the article to your social media feeds, or to provide functionality to the page in question. Others are to provide analytical data to the site owners, allowing them to see what writers and articles are a success (clickbait) and which fail.

    4. Re:All reported on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they are not. Those are all scripts, which do much more than just output links.

      stats.g.doubleclick.net/dc.js
      assets.pinterest.com/js/pinit.js
      cdn.krxd.net/controltag
      b.scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js
      d31qbv1cthcecs.cloudfront.net/atrk.js // THIS IS ALEXA!
      http://static.chartbeat.com/js/chartbeat.js // HTTPS version is loaded from Akamai
      secure-au.imrworldwide.com/v60.js
      edge.quantserve.com/quant.js
      ak.sail-horizon.com/horizon/v1.js
      www.google.com/cse/cse.js

      Those are just the ones which are immediately in the main document. More script tags are created by separate scripts. Even with Javascript disabled, many of these get a "ping" through tracking pixels in <noscript> tags, like Twitter and Facebook do. If you have not disabled the referer header and third party cookies in your browser, that's all they need to track you. It would work even if the URLs of the tracking pixels were not customized to each site, but they are.

    5. Re:All reported on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So those are all bad.

    6. Re:All reported on by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      When you load the Facebook Connect code from a third-party site, that is Facebook tracking you. Facebook knows that your browser requested their code from the other site. They can tell which site it is. They know that you visited that site. And, if you happen to have a valid login session at Facebook or did recently, then the site you visited probably also knows your identity on Facebook. All of this data gathering is part of the ability to post to Facebook. That is how Facebook makes its money, it sells data like that. Keep in mind that you don't pay to use Facebook. You are not Facebook's customer, you are Facebook's product. Their customers are the companies that buy your data, including which sites you visit and which articles you read.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  16. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by mark-t · · Score: 1

    What makes you think slashdot is in the top ten?

  17. Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who uses Facebook is a moron.

    1. Re:Facebook by Tablizer · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm ... guess my /etc/hosts IP of 0.0.0.0 for www.facebook.com must be "blocking' that link....

    3. Re:Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet AGAIN proven right by Slashdotter, ANOTHER!!!

      Take that Coren22, you know you worst and will never be correct. You 'claim' to have an MCSE but you LIE!!!

      APK

      P.S.=>Keep the proof on comming, winning every time...apk

  18. What if you don't use "top" websites? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    [nt]

    1. Re: What if you don't use "top" websites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's odd, I thought the Internet was bigger. Which nine are the bad ones?? Then we can just switch to the other one.

    2. Re:What if you don't use "top" websites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well a bottom website would be goatse I guess.

  19. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Informative

    And you think Slashdot doesn't share it for some reason?

    Ghostery is blocking the following on Slashdot:

    Doubleclick (advertising)
    Google Adwords Conversion (advertising)
    Google Analytics
    Janrain
    Scorecard Research Beacon
    Taboola

    It's on Slashdot, and everywhere else.

    Here's a quote from TFA:

    Most troubling is that if you use your browser setting to say 'Do Not Track' me, the explicitly stated policy of nearly all the companies is to flat-out ignore you

    What we need is 9 out of 10 users to start explicitly blocking tracking and advertising, and then flat-out ignore the companies who complain about their bottom line. That article from the advertising industry group talking about how they screwed up rings a little hollow when they are obviously not interested in respecting the requests of consumers to not track them. Enabling Do Not Track is fine, but that only works with the good actors. For everyone else, see below.

    https://www.ghostery.com/
    https://www.ublock.org/
    https://adblockplus.org/

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  20. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by Phusion · · Score: 1

    Doesn't Adblock/Plus whitelist companies that pay them?

    --
    640k ought to be enough for anyone.
  21. Does anti-tracknig software protect against this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use Ghostery. Am I any less prone to this data leaking because I use it? If not, what exactly can we do? I do most of my reading via RSS and Instapaper, which I'd like to think helps at least a little (I can't remember what many websites even look like anymore). But some things are unavoidable, such as using a search engine, accessing job search sites, using StackOverflow, etc.

  22. Re:Does anti-tracknig software protect against thi by t4eXanadu · · Score: 1

    Damn it, I thought I was logged in when I posted that. If you reply to the "does anti-tracknig [sic] software protect against this?" topic, please reply to this so I get a notification.

  23. Slashbot? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    One story [here] just answered another on

  24. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by kheldan · · Score: 2

    What we need is 9 out of 10 users to start explicitly blocking tracking and advertising, and then flat-out ignore the companies who complain about their bottom line.

    I'll tell you exactly what sort of response that would evoke from pretty much everyone, because I've already seen it: They start moving actual content and functionality for their sites to the same servers that are serving ads and things to track you, leaving you with two choices: accept their ads and tracking, or don't use their site at all. What's your response going to be when >90% of the Internet is denied to you, because you won't give in to their ads and tracking techniques? That's likely what's coming.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  25. Crap article is basically an advertisement by Dynedain · · Score: 1

    This is a crap article and just pushing for the tool the guy built.

    All the tool tells you is that the site makes 3rd party requests (Ghostery does a lot better job at this than some random bundle of python scripts). It does not tell what any of those 3rd party requests are doing, nor whether any personal data is being "leaked" by the site itself. Nor does it tell you if the site is pushing data wholesale on the backend to 3rd parties.

    --
    I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
  26. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    As far as I know they give you the option of seeing "trusted" ads (or whatever the terminology is), but last I knew they ask if you want to enable or disable that during setup. At this point I don't think they're turning it on without telling you, and they don't hide the option to turn it off.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  27. Re:Does anti-tracknig software protect against thi by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    A few add on suggestions got listed in "Firefox 42 Arrives With Tracking Protection, Tab Audio Indicators" (November 04, 2015)
    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
    The Fingerprinting wiki https://wiki.mozilla.org/Finge... has some of the more unique methods to track users.
    Soon tracking and ads will just be part of the site as functionality. Try and remove ads, tracking and the page, site is reduced to a title. No text, video, comments unless all tracking blockers are removed. Hard work for creators per page, per hour, per day but the consumer is fully tracked.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  28. it's your browser by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    The website isn't the leak. It just politely asks your browser to leak, and the browser naively complies. FWIW, people are sort of finally on this (e.g. PrivacyBadger) though we're still in the very early days of people-giving-a-fuck.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  29. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

    What's your response going to be when >90% of the Internet is denied to you, because you won't give in to their ads and tracking techniques? That's likely what's coming.

    We'll have to find out what will happen when >90% of the internet sees large drops in their traffic. People in general are becoming more aware to ad-blockers, it's no longer relegated to niche Firefox extensions. That day is coming. I expect to see new revenue models, which may be a way to continue the tracking, e.g. you pay a monthly subscription to a single "content network" that provides access to thousands of sites if you're logged in, rather than paying sites individually. Obviously that parent network would be able to track which of its sites you're on because you need to authenticate.

    They start moving actual content and functionality for their sites to the same servers that are serving ads

    I don't think we'll see that happen all over the internet. The lure of advertisers and trackers for site operators is that they get paid for putting a little bit of Javascript on their site. If they have more significant setup, hosting, and maintenance costs then it's not going to be as attractive. If they are paying for the bandwidth for third-party ads to be shown on their site then that is no longer negligible. Only the largest sites which would already have their entire operation hosted on a CDN would be fine with that. People buying virtual hosting to host their small-business site or blog aren't going to be bothered to set up something like that.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  30. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    Even better, install Privacy Badger and it will block player.ooyala.com and the cookies it uses to track you from one site to another.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  31. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by jandrese · · Score: 1

    As a longtime user of NoScript, this has not even come close to happening yet. I'm not even against ads, but I'm not going to let them run Javascript. If they want to show a banner then be my guest, if they want fingerprint my browser so they can track me across different websites then no thanks.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  32. You are the product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot craps on the government and NSA all day long. All the while Goolge tries to squeeze the list millionths of a penny out of an ad placement. At least the government is trying to catch bad guys

  33. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

    This. In addition, the ad networks like this because they can build a profile on you. I've never had an issue with a side bar or banner ad or whatever being served up from teh same machine as the content I am reading.

    Of course, if it gets too bad, since 99% of my web browsing is *reading* I can go back to a plain old text based browser like elinks

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  34. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    They start moving actual content and functionality for their sites to the same servers that are serving ads and things to track you, leaving you with two choices: accept their ads and tracking, or don't use their site at all.

    I've already been experiencing this already, not so much because a site is commingling its content and ads, but because my suite of advertisement/tracker/flash blockers break a small portion of the internet. Specifically, I've noticed:
    * forbes: I can never click past their "quote of the day"
    * politico: the drop down menu bar doesn't work
    * lots of sites have comment boxes disabled
    * occassionally I come across a video that won't load.

    So, my response: some sites just fall off my radar like forbes, but I don't miss them too much. Some sites I used with limited funcitonality, like politico. if i must see a video like if its a cat or something I open the link in a different browser.

    dude, there's a lot of content out there. very little is omg I gotta have type of content. if a site isn't loading, just move on.

  35. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    What we need is 9 out of 10 users to start explicitly blocking tracking and advertising, and then flat-out ignore the companies who complain about their bottom line.

    Yes, and this is part one of the strategy. Already, if I go to a site, and see "We see you are using an ad blocker. Please unblock to access our content.

    NONONONONONO assholes! You can just go out of business for all I care. I just click back to where I was, and move on. If enough of them analyze how many people just say a collective "Eat shit mofo's!", that will be the first stage.

    The second stage is to give them what they want. lots and lots and lots of data, all spoofed, all the time. Enough to make their data mining completely useless.

    The internet is very sick brothers. Time to make it well again.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  36. Re: Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lynx ftw

  37. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    I'll tell you exactly what sort of response that would evoke from pretty much everyone, because I've already seen it: They start moving actual content and functionality for their sites to the same servers that are serving ads and things to track you, leaving you with two choices: accept their ads and tracking, or don't use their site at all. What's your response going to be when >90% of the Internet is denied to you, because you won't give in to their ads and tracking techniques? That's likely what's coming.

    Good. Then I'll usse the ten percent of the sites that are left. Or not at all. Teh intertoobz are mighty damn sick these days, and are rapidly losing any semblance of usefulness. So if it reaches that point, then it will reach zero usefuness for many. Then business and the trackers will have won - sorta.

    All I know is I already don't go to sites that demand I turn off my adblocker software.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  38. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

    We'll have to find out what will happen when >90% of the internet sees large drops in their traffic. People in general are becoming more aware to ad-blockers, it's no longer relegated to niche Firefox extensions. That day is coming.

    Pretty much this. I've installed it on a lot of regular folks computers, usually after a demonstration of the difference in loading times enabled and disabled. I'm usually looking at them in the first place because of compliaints of slow loading.

    And I'm pretty certain it is having some effect already, as a number of sites that I no longer ever go to pop up screens that tell me to disable my ad blocker software......

    Umm no folks, you'll never have even the chance to infect my machine ever again. ESAD baby.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  39. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are you so sure of that? Are you actually taking steps to stop it? Are you verifying it?

    Right now on Slashdot as I type this, there are 12 external domains being referenced, 8 of which want to run scripts. All of them are ad or analytics companies.

    A massive amount of sites have references to the big ad sites (usually multiple), as well as references and/or cookies to social media sites ... which means a lot of ad companies trivially track you across sites, know where you visit, how often, and the pages you're reading.

    Unless you are actively blocking this crap, and unless you're looking at the sites which are being blocked and adding which you've missed ... and clearing any cookies and shit they've added as you go ... you should really assume that these sites are seeing your data even if you don't subscribe to them or realize you're interacting with them.

    You have to be fairly aggressively blocking this shit to believe those companies aren't seeing some of your data.

    And, quite frankly, if you are aggressively blocking this shit, your friends and family are probably tired of you ranting about how fucked up the internet is. I know mine are.

    The problem is so many people don't know this, and even if you try to tell them they don't care.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  40. Bad terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a big difference between accidentally leaking information and deliberately selling it. The article mentions that web sites are just "sharing" your data, don't kid yourself, they are selling it for whatever they can get. If their privacy policy says that they are stripping off all personal identifying information they are lying. It has been proven that browser fingerprinting can re-link your browsing habits with your actual ID with a high degree of reliability.

  41. It makes you more secure by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

    ... requires you reveal information. The laws of physics aren't going to change for anyone.

    Not only that, but a good portion of a leakage makes you more secure and is better for the user. How many millions of sites have a facebook login option? So Facebook can see your IP from that... because your browser is loading their javascript.

    Would you really rather have a million copies of that javascript file out there that don't get updated when Facebook discovers a vulnerability or improves a security feature? Let's pretend you're not *you*, the tech guy running noscript, but a normal user.

    1. Re:It makes you more secure by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I use uMatrix, Ghostery, and often have Disconnect enabled but I'm not sure why. Coupled with AdBlock, yeah, they can track me but it's pretty limited. Scripts only get loaded when I say they get loaded. I don't see ads. uMatrix is like NoScript but more easily refined. It's like an early version of Outpost Personal Firewall for your web browser. Between that, a VPN, and a remote connection to my home PC, I'm even comfortable using the hotel's wireless.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:It makes you more secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter... visit panopticlick on EFF.org's website, even with those tools, your browser will be found unique.

      Who needs cookies when the Web browser hands over a fingerprint, and your ISP adds X-ACR headers to every HTTP transaction?

    3. Re:It makes you more secure by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't know who it is but I'm no longer completely unique on panopticlick. I was, for quite a while, but that's changed. There were a whole two of us, I suspect the other one was also me. Either way, that's fine - or minimal. It's the site that gets that. I don't want it being spread to every other data collection service - which is why I use uMatrix.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  42. One website, one domain. by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

    Pretty soon instead of blackholing domains I don't trust, I'm going to to have to start whitelisting the few that I do trust. Nice job corporate assholes, you ruined the internet.

    1. Re:One website, one domain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is harder to do with host files though. Not a good idea.

      APK

      P.S.=>It can still be done though, just better not have sites that change addresses. I know! Maybe I can instead map the hosts file to be updated by a server that will convert the FQDN to the address for only approved sites. I'll call it HFDNSn4, (Host File Domain Name Service [with] no 4warding [or root hints])! Step 3....spam forums and stalk people to tout my obvious decades old solution that is a bad idea.....Step 4...profit!!!!!...apk

  43. Is there a plugin? by khelms · · Score: 1

    That returns randomly generated crap when websites retrieve their cookies?

  44. Its abhorrent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recently turned down a job offer that would have paid 20k more because I found out this is what that particular company did....they were...somewhat vague about it on the company page. When asked about it in the interview, the hiring manager sort of seemed a tad embarrassed and even went as far as saying he had just started 3 months ago...like that was his excuse.

    I think programmers need to take a stand and refuse these types of jobs.

  45. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's your response going to be when >90% of the Internet is denied to you

    It will be like it was before the advertisers began to ruin everything, circa 1997 or so. The academic stuff, geek/nerd stuff and all of the rest that we old timers cared about will still be around. As for fantasy sports, the Kardashians and the rest that garbage? Good riddance.

  46. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since 90% of the Web is crap anyway, nothing of value will be lost.

  47. Got it! by ememisya · · Score: 2

    We all make sure to lie a lot online. Click random ads, just for the hell of it. Act like a different person, really roleplay, say on random days, but not too random, surprise yourself. If everybody did this there would be no value in your data. Sour the milk.

    1. Re:Got it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's a waste of your time. Install something like privacy badger and set the sliders to block anything not needed on the sites you visit. It won't be long before all the social media shite and trackers are a thing of the past for you.

    2. Re:Got it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said that bad data was actually bad? Accuracy in the world is not all what it's hyped up to be.

    3. Re:Got it! by pseudorand · · Score: 1

      If everybody did this there would be no value in your data. Sour the milk.

      You're confusing data quality and data marketability. While your proposal would diminish data quality, data quality is already pretty low as far as I can tell based on the supposedly "target" ads I see. But despite the fact that it's already unreliable at best, the companies collecting the data are still able to monetize it quite thoroughly, and will continue to do so no matter how bad the data gets. The companies (and governments) buying the data just want an excuse to do more of what they're doing. They do nothing to verify if the crap their being sold is actually beneficial.

  48. Fucking shocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm fucking shocked that it isn't 10/10

  49. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by Alumoi · · Score: 1

    I expect to see new revenue models, which may be a way to continue the tracking, e.g. you pay a monthly subscription to a single "content network" that provides access to thousands of sites if you're logged in, rather than paying sites individually. Obviously that parent network would be able to track which of its sites you're on because you need to authenticate.

    Hmm, seems like what the ISPs are doing righ now. Your point is?

  50. Re: Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites by KGIII · · Score: 1

    There's an interesting browser for Windows users called OffByOne. I've not used it in years but it wasn't too bad for text-only browsing. I think it displayed pictures as an option. Scripting simply doesn't work in it. At least it didn't years ago. Google indicates it is still around.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  51. Take Slashdot for instance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jadserve.postrelease.com

    cdn.taboola.com

    s3-us-west-2.amazonaws...

    example.com

    www.googleadservices.com

    cdn-social.janrain.com

    cdn.quilt.janrain.com

    player.ooyala.com

    widget-cdn.rpxnow.com

    slashcdn.com

    s.ntv.io

  52. For instance... by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    For instance Slashdot: (orginally posted as AC)

    jadserve.postrelease.com
    cdn.taboola.com
    The following domains don't appear to be tracking you
    www.googleadservices.com
    cdn-social.janrain.com
    cdn.quilt.janrain.com
    player.ooyala.com
    widget-cdn.rpxnow.com
    slashcdn.com
    s.ntv.io

  53. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What makes you think slashdot is in the top ten?

    NetCraft confirmed it.

  54. Re: Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

    elinks is better, it can be compiled with both mouse and image support...

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  55. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

    Ghostery is blocking the following on Slashdot:

    Doubleclick (advertising)
    Google Adwords Conversion (advertising)
    Google Analytics
    Janrain
    Scorecard Research Beacon
    Taboola

    ...which means it's failing to block ooyala.com, ntv.io, and rxpnow.com. You might want to get a better browser extension (such as RequestPolicy).

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  56. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ghostery is blocking the following on Slashdot:

    Doubleclick (advertising)
    Google Adwords Conversion (advertising)
    Google Analytics
    Janrain
    Scorecard Research Beacon
    Taboola

    ...which means it's failing to block ooyala.com, ntv.io, and rxpnow.com. You might want to get a better browser extension (such as RequestPolicy).

    Privacy Badger from EFF catches them all.

  57. Re:Nine Out of Ten of the Internet's Top Websites. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    My point is that what I suggested is completely different from what ISPs are doing right now. When you host a site, does some random ISP pay you when their customer visits it? No? Then it's not the same thing, is it? What I suggested is more along the lines of what cable TV was supposed to be when it started, not ISPs that provide access to the internet in the first place. I don't expect an ISP to create what I'm talking about, that's not their job.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  58. So does the USPS! by martinfb · · Score: 1

    I just moved from an address where I was finally getting a handle on the junk mail is was getting. It had been a nightmare! Junk mail would find it's way into my mailbox yet the truly important stuff would get lost or delayed! Perhaps this is a result of the specific postal office for that address - bad local management, et al... HOWEVER - since I invoked permanent forwarding to my new address, I am getting deluged with junk mail again! Obviously, the default is for the USPS to opt-in my 'new' address to every junk mail service they can sell my address to. I vehemently object! I want a say in that! The default SHOULD be to be opt-ed out, with a option to opt-in when I file for the forwarding. Does this not seem like the sensible, logical thing to do 'by the people, for the people'? As opposed to 'by non-human entities, too the people'! My point is that privacy has been abused ever since constitutional rights have been getting abused. And now it is merely standard practice. It is now up to you, the individual, to protect your self; because our corporate government is failing to do so.

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  59. Hey - if the NSA can do it... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    ...why not every other entity. After all, isn't the government now a corporate entity?!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  60. Re:Does anti-tracknig software protect against thi by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    Ghostery does help some, but I highly doubt it will ever near 100% in terms of stopping tracking. As posted elsewhere in this thread, Privacy Badger would be another extension to look into. I don't see a problem with running multiple extensions. Adblock plus is fine for just stopping ads, and obviously Noscript is the heavy-handed way to stop a lot of this stuff also.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  61. 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 dns blocking
    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

  62. Stop this & more online threats via hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    ---

    FREE & not 'souled-out' to advertisers + adds speed, security & reliability & does FAR more w/ FAR less more efficiently vs. redundant browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' many security issues & it stops a LOT of tracking @ webpage + DNS levels combined too from 1 file you already NATIVELY have - firewalls do the rest (on lesser used IP address based tracking vs. host-domain name type).

    ---

    It obtains its data vs. many types of online threats & for adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community!

    ---

    It SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocking + locally cached in RAM favorites placed @ the TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed vs. remote DNS also aiding reliability) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!

    ---

    It does all that via something you already natively have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads!

    ---

    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 safe proven 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/...

    ---

    * "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

  63. 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 dns blocking
    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

  64. 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 dns blocking
    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

  65. 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 dns blocking
    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

  66. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C talk
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C talk
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C talk
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoning
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past dns blocks
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing (adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites)
    14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
    15.) Easy data control
    16.) Do all that & block ads better vs. addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = on devices natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less vs. hosts less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN operation (as 1st resolver).

    ---

    Ab+'s a 128-151mb memory hog http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts use 3-11mb w/ my program initially). Even FireFox 41 adblock eats 65++mb http://www.ghacks.net/2015/06/...

    ---

    ClarityRay defeats it seeing addons used via native browser methods!

    ---

    Ab+'s bribed not to work by default http://www.businessinsider.com... & ABP bought out adblock http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

    ---

    Ab+ adds complexity in slower usermode (w/ more messagepassing overhead + context switch vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ---

    AdBlock's SLOWER vs. hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

    ---

    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 safe per 57 antivirus programs in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  67. 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 dns blocking
    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 as well or @ ALL + 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

  68. Why use all those when 1 thing does it better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: & protects you from more threats + yields more speed - APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    FREE & not 'souled-out' to advertisers + adds speed, security & reliability & does FAR more w/ FAR less more efficiently vs. redundant browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' many security issues & it stops a LOT of tracking @ webpage + DNS levels combined too from 1 file you already NATIVELY have - firewalls do the rest (on lesser used IP address based tracking vs. host-domain name type).

    ---

    It obtains its data vs. online threats & for adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community!

    ---

    It SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocking + locally cached in RAM favorites placed @ the TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed vs. remote DNS also aiding reliability) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!

    ---

    It does all that via something you natively have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads!

    ---

    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 safe proven 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/...

    ---

    * "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:

    "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

  69. 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 dns blocking
    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

  70. 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 dns blocking
    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

  71. 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 dns blocking
    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

  72. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C talk
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C talk
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C talk
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoning
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past dns blocks
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing (adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites)
    14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
    15.) Easy data control
    16.) Do all that & block ads better vs. addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = on devices natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less vs. hosts less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN operation (as 1st resolver).

    ---

    Ab+'s a 128-151mb memory hog http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts use 3-11mb w/ my program initially). Even FireFox 41 adblock eats 65++mb http://www.ghacks.net/2015/06/...

    ---

    ClarityRay defeats it seeing addons used via native browser methods!

    ---

    Ab+'s bribed not to work by default http://www.businessinsider.com... & ABP bought out adblock http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

    ---

    Ab+ adds complexity in slower usermode (w/ more messagepassing overhead + context switch vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ---

    AdBlock's SLOWER vs. hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

    ---

    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 safe per 57 antivirus programs in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  73. 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 dns blocking
    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 as well or @ ALL + 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