Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Launches Facebook Container Add-on To Isolate Your Web Browsing Activity From Facebook (venturebeat.com)

Posted by msmash on from the let-the-engineering-war-begin dept.

Paul Sawers, writing for VentureBeat: On Tuesday, Mozilla announced a new tool it said will help keep Facebook from tracking your browsing across the web. The Facebook Container add-on for Firefox promises to make it "much harder" for Facebook to track you when you're not on its site. Mozilla has been working on the technology for several years already, accelerating its development in response to what it called a "growing demand for tools that help manage privacy and security," according to a statement issued by Mozilla today.

Most people are probably aware that data they directly give to Facebook -- such as "liking" a Page or updating their relationship status -- may be sold to advertisers. But fewer people know that Facebook can also track their activities on other websites that have integrated with aspects of Facebook's tracking technology, such as the pervasive "Like" button. And it's in this scenario that Mozilla is now hoping to play the good guy.

112 comments

  1. Great! Now add a Google container and we're set by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment.

    1. Re:Great! Now add a Google container and we're set by yuvcifjt · · Score: 1

      Precisely, facebook can easily be blocked as it's just one or two domains, but what about the biggest privacy-breaching data-collector of them all - the serial tracker Google?!

    2. Re:Great! Now add a Google container and we're set by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      This is actually a better idea than you might think. For some people it's a coin toss between Chrome and Firefox, not being able to be tracked by Google may well be a decider for many, and I somewhat doubt that Chrome would support something like that out of the box.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Great! Now add a Google container and we're set by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 2

      What's the biggest privacy abusing data collector of them all? -- It's not Facebook or Google or Microsoft, etc.. It's your ISP. The only way you can stop them is to use a VPN but in the past they've even found ways to "tag" your encrypted packets so that they can identify them as you wherever you go and then sell that information to 3rd parties.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    4. Re:Great! Now add a Google container and we're set by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Done as well as any other site you want to segregate as well.

    5. Re:Great! Now add a Google container and we're set by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

      [Citation Needed]
      Please tell me what these tags look like. Where do they fit in the network stack?

  2. still snooping my dns though? by nimbius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But you still sniff my DNS traffic in the nightly releases right? Christ, whos running mozilla these days... https://www.theregister.co.uk/...

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:still snooping my dns though? by DarkRookie · · Score: 1

      The million monkeys with a million IDEs at this point.

      --
      The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    2. Re:still snooping my dns though? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      You don't *HAVE* to run the nightly releases...

    3. Re:still snooping my dns though? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      Why would you use nightlies? I can't think of a single reason why I would want to do that apart from specifically needing to test a plugin against the latest code.

  3. This Facebook news is not new. by DarkRookie · · Score: 0

    This isn't new coming from Facebook. This has happened many times before. Why is everyone scrambling to try and fix something that can't be fixed.
    FB should just close up shop if they are thinking of doing anything moral or ethical (Which they are not. Dollar Dollar bills yall.)

    --
    The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    1. Re:This Facebook news is not new. by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Thinking it's just Facebook, and that you'll be safe by avoiding Facebook, is a bigger mistake than using Facebook.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    2. Re:This Facebook news is not new. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      What is new is that there exist certain groups that are now capable of exploiting others using FB. It is illegal to harm others in one's community. But there appears to be no law to handle those outside of ones country that are operating with the reason to do harm, and also monetize the same information. I question the Coolness Factor of harming others.

    3. Re:This Facebook news is not new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is new is that there exist certain groups that are now capable of exploiting others using FB

      There's nothing new here. FB and FB apps have been exploiting it's users from the beginning. The only thing new here is the anti-Trump crowd having their panties in a bunch.

    4. Re:This Facebook news is not new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Really? Tell us more, Mr. Zuckerberg.

    5. Re:This Facebook news is not new. by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Thinking it's just Facebook, and that you'll be safe by avoiding Facebook, is a bigger mistake than using Facebook.

      I don't think they claimed it was just Facebook. Facebook is a well known and ubiquitous offender. Knock 'em out one at a time. I bet it would be relatively easy to convert this Facebook container into a Google container, and whatever kind of container you wanted.

    6. Re:This Facebook news is not new. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not only Facebook. But you should start somewhere. Al Capone also wasn't the only crook in Chicago, but it's sensible to start with the biggest criminal.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:This Facebook news is not new. by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      Why does everything have to be about the annoying orange? It may surprise you, but most of the planet doesn't really revolve around that goofball.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:This Facebook news is not new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different AC here. It's good that people are finally sitting up and taking notice of Facebook, but it's also selective outrage. Facebook conducting experiments on manipulating user's moods was met with a shrug, but it takes being associated with Trump's campaign for the privacy abuse to actually matter somehow.

    9. Re:This Facebook news is not new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like smashing roaches one by one by hand instead of just keeping the damn house clean.

      Despite the 'success' of putting Capone away, the entire situation wouldn't have even existed if it not for prohibition. The fact remains that it was a war the bureau could not sustain.

      Strong privacy laws, or GTFO back to Facebook.

  4. Web is broken. by LoRdTAW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When a website can track you, it's no longer a website. I call that malware. Why did we let this happen again?

    1. Re:Web is broken. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I don't know for sure, but I'm kinda certain it has something to do with getting something for free or videos of cute kittens.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Web is broken. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When a website can track you, it's no longer a website. I call that malware. Why did we let this happen again?

      It is not just the snoops, but the folks who allowed the browsers to report back pretty much everything. Fingerprinting, cookies, the works.

    3. Re:Web is broken. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I completely disagree. It's running on their computer, serving their interests. That's the essence of not-malware.

      If your browser, though, is serving them, then it is malware.

    4. Re:Web is broken. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the beginning.

      https://www.w3.org/Daemon/Implementation/HTLog.c

      It is not broken. You just don't understand how it works and how it has always worked.

      What do you expect? Magic pixies to deliver your content?

    5. Re:Web is broken. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reliance on 'free' centralized privately owned public services riding off the back of the concept of 'free' open source products.

      Bring on the BIG privacy act. Throw a few jackasses in prison. It's time.

  5. Why call that Facebook-tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's browser tracking. My enemy is running on my box.

    Not long ago, Javascript was optional. There was an easy option to disable it, meaning the web "programmers" out there had to cope with the fact that some fraction of their wares^H^H^H^H users out there were "no Javascript".

    Browser vendors have been hiding, then removing such options, on the pretext that users are too stupid to flip that switch at will.

    I can understand the likes of Google, Apple and their ilk "nudging" users into being a more docile crop, but Mozilla? I'm deeply disappointed. Seems their perception bias can only envision a "brave new world" where the user is the slave of apps. Thank you NOT!

    And yes, Mozilla: I'm really angry at you *because I do care about you*

    1. Re:Why call that Facebook-tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can understand the likes of Google, Apple and their ilk "nudging" users into being a more docile crop, but Mozilla? I'm deeply disappointed.

      From what I understand, Chrome was mostly developed by Firefox developers paid by Google. Some of these devs continued Firefox development in parallel, while Google rained tons of money on Mozilla "to be the default search engine on Firefox".

      I suppose most honest and competent Firefox developers and staff left Mozilla long ago, leaving us with people whose only interest in Firefox is money and an illusion of glory from being part of a company receiving Google's money. Hopefully most of them will soon finally notice that Mozilla has been completely irrelevant for years now, and big companies stop bottle-feeding Mozilla, because it's not even useful as an anti-trust PowerPoint bullet point argument in front of regulatory powers anymore.

      When all the old installation base (which they got only because us geeks installed Firefox on family and friend's computers, and freely advertised Firefox in various ways over the years) gets finally renewed, all they'll have left will be us lazy fucks who haven't yet migrated to Pale Moon... and they probably won't even know it, because we obviously all disabled most of their shitty tracking before even installing the "updates"...

      Then hopefully they'll run back to where the dirty money is, and the community will progressively rebuild itself around Pale Moon.

  6. OR... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Instead of picking on Facebook specifically, you could have a setting that refuses to load any off-site data, unless it's on a whitelist. Then make it the default. Problem solved.

    1. Re:OR... by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      This would break a lot of CDNs which use random-like hostnames.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    2. Re:OR... by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Including third party cookies.

      But in the end I'm sure FB, Google, and others will find a way, because there's too much money in it.

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

      I find the "pick on Facebook" feature the most attractive one.

    4. Re:OR... by rtkluttz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And anonymise the browser by just having it say yes I have it to every plugin, font, etc. and then just report LOCAL errors to the owner that content may not work because a plugin was requested that isn't actually installed. Also remove any and all functionality that allows outbound data to be sent without a user interaction... i.e. disable mouse location sensing, disable live fields that send data in real time such as google instant. Disable search in the address bar and any number of other things that reduce security and privacy of the user.

      --
      Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
    5. Re:OR... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like noscript (atleast on the old firefox)?

    6. Re:OR... by Luthair · · Score: 1

      It would, but I wonder how relevant that is today. Anecdotally it seems like most sites are building big blobs of Javascript instead of pulling in libraries.

    7. Re:OR... by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Personally I already use social blockers and on the rare occasions I go log into Facebook I use a fresh private browsing instance. Mozillas cookie sandboxes could have a similar effect, though super cookies or other fingerprinting methods might be circumventing it.

    8. Re:OR... by svanheulen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's what uMatrix does: https://github.com/gorhill/uMa... https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... It would be impossible to have that on by default for normal users though. Too many sites are broken by not allowing 3rd party requests, and the average user would just switch to Chrome rather then deal with making whitelists.

    9. Re:OR... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's what Privacy Badger and uBlock are for.

      I read TFA and the Mozilla blog post and l still don't know exactly what their add-on does. It's not clear how it contains anything, or why I'd use it over Privacy Badger.

      Privacy Badger is great because it doesn't use whitelists. It looks for sites following you around the web, tracking you on multiple other sites, and blocks them. It generally doesn't break anything so I'm happy to install it on friend's and family member's computers.

      uBlock Origin is pretty great too, but for other people's computers I tend to only enable the basic ad-blocking to avoid breakage.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:OR... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Google has carefully preempted any attempts to limit third party sources in web pages. By practically mandating (lest you be ranked lower in Google Search Engine results pages) that sites offload all sorts of things to separate domains ("to minimize overhead for unnecessary cookie transmissions") and even third parties ("to leverage caching of script libraries which are constant across web sites"), Google has made sure that sites break if you prevent them from loading third party resources. Now you're supposed to implement lazy loading (again, to "speed up pages", so that they will be ranked higher), which means sites won't show images unless you enable Javascript. Until web authors realize that Google is not their friend, the web is fucked.

    11. Re:OR... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Then I guess it's time they start working around that limitation.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:OR... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But if it's on by default and users start to complain about sites not working, sites have to find a new way to deliver their content to browsers that don't just jump through their hoops.

      Hell, web designers made whole websites for IE6, this is a breeze compared to that bullshit!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:OR... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Force them. There is a billion webpages out there delivering the same content this one is delivering. You don't play nice with my browser and its settings?

      NEXT!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:OR... by srmalloy · · Score: 1

      As a concession to obstructing the execution of random code from unknown sites to slow the wholesale scraping of my browsing habits, I have execution blocked by default, and when I go to a site and find that it doesn't display right, I get to play JavaScript roulette, wading through a list that can show a dozen or more hosts completely unrelated to the site I'm viewing to find the one(s) that will make the content display correctly. The Gizmodo sites, for example, will sometimes require running a script from pbs.twimg.com to display images, there's the ongoing [randomstring].cloudfront.com hostnames that can change from day to day on the same page, and many more. Some of them, like googleadsyndication.com, google.pageads.com, or anything in the doubleclick.net domain, are readily identifiable as adserving scripts and left disabled, while others, like js-sec.indexww.com and www.googletagservices.com, are less clear.

    15. Re:OR... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      Websites would get fixed in a hurry if it was the default. Could be you'd need the three majors to all do it at the same time.

      Alternately, Firefox could provide a reasonable default whitelist and pop up a scary warning when a page makes a request from a third party. That seems to have worked out pretty well for https. If the default whitelist was well made people might not even notice. The ads would disappear, darn, and the tracking bugs and like buttons, but most of the content is either local or delivered by reputable CDN.

    16. Re:OR... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went to two websites lately that only revealed self-host javascripts when looking at the page code with CTRL-U. Nice! but not your run of the mill site.
      I don't know if the javascripts themselves call other javascripts, though. The first site hosted jquery by itself though so that's a good sign.

    17. Re:OR... by svanheulen · · Score: 1

      That would be awesome but good luck getting Google on board with that. They're just as bad as Facebook when it comes to tracking and Chrome is the most used browser.

    18. Re:OR... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's great for sure but as everything still works, I'm concerned about everything that got loaded anyway (so e.g. if you load something like google.com/api/foo.js 500 times, it's logged 500 times somewhere)

      Both do work with no setting up, so that's nice. e.g. a friend installed them on his own without needing my assistance, just recreating the set up I had done on another browser or profile.

    19. Re:OR... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a good reason not to use Chrome, to be honest. If Firefox wanted to gain some marketshare and stand up for privacy, now would seem to be a great time to push this. Google wouldn't like it, but with everyone pissed at Facebook they're probably fairly desperate for the public not to be reminded that their business model is even more invasive than than FBs.

      Google might not even mind that much. Google's competitors all get their information from tracking people. If this got passed, Google might stand to win big: they're the only ones with a giant ad network AND a secondary method of spying via being the ubiquitous search engine.

    20. Re:OR... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      That would be awesome but good luck getting Google on board with that. They're just as bad as Facebook when it comes to tracking and Chrome is the most used browser.

      Not only that, but there would also be pressure...either overt, covert, or a combination...by the US government and it's TLAs to not damage a significant part of their domestic and foreign surveillance programs.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    21. Re:OR... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Going by the name, I guess it's a specialization of their "multi-account containers" feature/extension* (which allows one to create isolated tabs/'sessions' with separate cookie jars/Session IDs/offline storage) set up to automagically create a container for facebook.com, making it a wee bit harder for fb to pin your online activity (on a separate/"default" container) to your fb account.

      *: The extension only adds an easy-to-use UI, the feature is baked in from FF 59.x (if not 58.x) and can be used via about:config magic.

    22. Re:OR... by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      zzzz works for me.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    23. Re:OR... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Very relevant. Most medium to large websites use CDNs to host images, videos, and other non-dynamic data. It sounds as if, from your last statement, you think they're only used to host Javascript libraries, i don't know why you would think that.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    24. Re:OR... by Quantum+gravity · · Score: 1

      There is the First Party Isolation plugin. Here is the description:

      "First Party Isolation, also known as Cross-Origin Identifier Unlinkability is a concept from the Tor Browser. The idea is to key every source of browser identification with the domain in the URL bar (the first party). This makes all access to identifiers distinct between usage in the website itself and through third-party. Think of it as blocking Third-party cookies, but more exhaustively." ...

  7. I have a container to isolate myself from Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The new Waterfox was released yesterday. Use it and stay in the world of powerful XUL extensions. Pale Moon and Basilisk as well.

  8. What about Google?! by yuvcifjt · · Score: 2

    Forget one little domain like facebook which can easily be blocked, what about the biggest data collector and serial tracker Google which is almost impossible to block?!

    1. Re:What about Google?! by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think it's time for a "tracking cookie mix and match" addon. Every time you start your browser, you get a new tracking cookie from a pool of participating people that originally belonged to someone else. After a couple minutes you return the cookie to the pool and get a new one from someone else, while yours goes to some other person.

      What this eventually does is invalidate and thus poison the cookie data. Unless Google finds a way to voluntarily eliminate these cookies from their data mining, their whole data pool is useless. Which is basically all we want. Either they have to throw the cookies away that they use to track us, or they have to throw all tracking cookies away.

      Either is fine by me.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:What about Google?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      google is easy to block. pi.hole will do it for you. It's hilarious how many sites don't get any analytics data from me at all. Even my stock broker tries to use Google, but pi.hole takes care of it. https://pi-hole.net

    3. Re:What about Google?! by hawk · · Score: 1

      >I think it's time for a "tracking cookie mix and match" addon.

      welcome too the 90s :)

      junkbuster had options for this way back when. I'm not sure how well supported or complete it was, but these were in the configuration file in the mid 90s.

      hawk

    4. Re:What about Google?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like what my coworkers and I were doing with our grocery store cards in the 1990s.

      At some point, we stopped caring, though. :(

    5. Re:What about Google?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can create a container for any site you choose with this Firefox add on.

    6. Re:What about Google?! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Because it was a hassle. Since this would be fully automatic with you having to do nothing (after installing it once), it's way more convenient.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:What about Google?! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Apparently it didn't catch on, maybe if they had made it an automatic-on feature it would?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:What about Google?! by hawk · · Score: 1

      I don't know that it ever got finished, but maybe it did. I also don't recall every seeing a cookie exchange site or server.

      It certainly would never have become automatic--over privacy concerns.

      hawk

  9. Not new to you by sjbe · · Score: 1

    This isn't new coming from Facebook. This has happened many times before. Why is everyone scrambling to try and fix something that can't be fixed.

    Sure it can. We can collectively make Facebook irrelevant/unprofitable. Ask MySpace what that looks like. Facebook will be a tough out but they aren't invincible. Facebook seems determined to explore where the line for "too far" actually lies. For me it is way behind them. Others have different opinions but everyone has a limit. Sure this new revelation isn't exactly shocking to many of us but to many people it is actually surprising. Don't overestimate how much attention people pay to corporate shenanigans.

    1. Re:Not new to you by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The problem is that we may have known for a long time what kind of data mill FB is, but you would be surprised to how many this was anything but obvious. Yes, they collect data, people know that, but most people think the only data FB collects (and can collect) is the data you hand over freely. And even that isn't really present for most people using it. "I have nothing to hide" is still in many peoples' heads.

      This might well be an eye opener to some people who get to see just HOW deep the rabbit hole goes. And only when they notice what kind of privacy infraction this data collector is, they might start being fed up with it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Disconnect by iTrawl · · Score: 1

    I understand that Disconnect does this, but not just for Facebook. I had "Block third-party cookies" enable in my Chrome and draw.io thought I had Disconnect installed and gave me instructions on how to whitelist them so I can use Google Drive.

    --
    "Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
  11. I keep websites separated a little by... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I keep things separate by having many user accounts on my PC, using a last name:
    smith -- used for most websites that don't need logon info
    smith_g -- for google
    smith_fb -- for facebook
    smith_b -- banking
    smith_nf -- netflix
    smith_s -- secure login (clear brower cache before each use)
    smith_o -- outlook
    smith_y -- yahoo
    smith_e -- other email accounts

    1. Re:I keep websites separated a little by... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hm, how do you do it : ssh -X, su, sudo? Windows user switching?
      Or perhaps firefox -P --noremote, which would be easier on resources.

      Off-topic : it isn't that easy on linux desktop to have a bunch of launchers for stuff like that. Perhaps just a file manager window would do. I'm not too sure about which file managers exactly can create .desktop files with an easy wizard, in any directory not just the desktop, or if one just has a GUI that makes it as easy as Windows in the 90s..
      I would like a clone of Windows 3.1's "program manager" even : it has a bunch of named "drawers" that open child windows with app "icons", with double click and no animation. So, like Android or Gnome 3 bullshit etc. but with a superior, easier to use mouse+keyboard GUI.
      That's grossly off-topic but the start menu in linux desktops GUIs is too crappy to be easily used as dumping grounds for custom launchers. (could launch VM for this, VM for that, emulator, launch this IM client with this username/profile and talk to this person or group, etc.)

      Or do you recreate the equivalent of a DOS .bat menu in the terminal.

    2. Re:I keep websites separated a little by... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Windows/Ubuntu/MacOS user switching -- the challenge is if you want to copy and paste a URL across accounts (from FB to email / etc ), but that can be done with a text file in a directory that all the user accounts have read access to

    3. Re:I keep websites separated a little by... by mccrew · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you are serious, can't tell if you are being facetious.

      So if you want to browse to a different site, you switch logins to another user account? To each his own, I suppose. That would drive me nuts in no time fast.

      Of course you realize that the advertisers are not fooled, and can gather up and identify scattered requests all having the same IP address, with the same CPU ID, with the same set of fonts loaded, and many other uniquifying tricks like hidden <canvas> element renderings...

      --
      Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
    4. Re: I keep websites separated a little by... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not use firejail on Linux to do this? It can use persistent profile dirs and it can overlay tmpfs over everything else so your system really is read only other than ~/.Mozilla.

      The name of the windows equivalent escapes me.

    5. Re:I keep websites separated a little by... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that I can still be tracked via IP, but keeping things separated in the way mentioned above prevents non-facebook sites from noticing that I'm logged into facebook and presenting 'like' buttons which might be accidentally clicked

    6. Re:I keep websites separated a little by... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's Qubes OS which runs entire operating systems for a similar goal of isolation, which is quite more heavy handed. So, using user accounts seems to make quite good sense for me - it segregates user contexts afterall. Like running a web server under the 'apache' user instead of dedicating an entire OS, VM or computer.

      Only missing there is to integrate more seamlessly - run windows from different "users" on the same desktop (Wayland desktop while we're at it?). ssh -X user2@localhost can be used as a lazy way to do it.
      Here the GP uses the "Windows+L" method, even if benefits may be limited it's at least something simple and that works.

  12. why just facebook tho? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is tracking people by logins, to GMail, Facebook, ISP portals, whatever.

    What's needed is a general solution that lets me stay logged in (to any site that's not stuck in the retarded 90s with login timeouts and "use our mobile app just to stay logged in" nonsense), but reduces the power of cookies irrevocably and understandably, across the board, not with some manually-maintained whitelist pushed down by a central party that can sell off corruptions to the whitelist as a revenue model like AdBlock. The "3rd party cookie" thing didn't cut it, either, just broke stuff without any security gain. "Profiles" in Chrome sort of do that. I can have a separate profile for Facebook. but they are cumbersome and not really intended for this. It should be automatic.

    As a side-benefit it will make XSS less exploitable.

    1. Re:why just facebook tho? by zfractal · · Score: 1

      What's needed is a general solution that lets me stay logged in (to any site that's not stuck in the retarded 90s with login timeouts and "use our mobile app just to stay logged in" nonsense), but reduces the power of cookies irrevocably and understandably, across the board, not with some manually-maintained whitelist pushed down by a central party that can sell off corruptions to the whitelist as a revenue model like AdBlock.

      There is something like that. But nobody really uses it.

  13. Too little too late by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    This is something they should have done about 8-10 years ago. FB has more than enough dirt.

  14. Read the ToSes as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some services collect your information from Facebook, thereby giving Facebook a starting profile of you even if you have everything related to Facebook blocked and never had an account.

  15. why is google impossible to block? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why is google impossible to block?

    1. Re:why is google impossible to block? by yuvcifjt · · Score: 1

      Because Google has a hand in virtually all aspects of the web.

      Anytime you send mail, it's very likely one of your recipients is using Google Mail, including companies, or your mail travels through their exchange. Otherwise, one of their dns resolvers might have a hand in your traffic.
      And if not, then either your browser (Chrome) or your phone (Android) will keep phoning home and reporting personal data, location, and pics to Google.

      And even if that doesn't get you, then generally browsing any site on the web with their countless trackers (captcha, gstatic, fonts, cdn, analytics, doubleclick, gtm, ad manager, google plus tracker, maps, etc) will certainly get you or will break websites.

      I believe Google has already been using browser fingerprinting for some time now, and you can see the result of this with their latest captcha, which no longer needs any input except your typing and mouse movements on a webpage.

      And the fact that Google and NSA have a nice little pact means they obviously have a past amount of personal data on individuals which even the NSA can't gather!

  16. Re:I have a container to isolate myself from Mozil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "New" Waterfox is still 100% dependent on FF ESR, which still supports XUL.

    The real test will come when ESR update amputates XUL from ESR later this year. I have no idea how they are planning on keeping XUL support after Mozilla stops support for it in ESR. It's one thing to just copy/paste relevant updates with minimal tweaks. It's a whole different beast to actually have to find the bugs and fix them yourself.

  17. FFS by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    Most people are probably aware that data they directly give to Facebook -- such as "liking" a Page or updating their relationship status -- may be sold to advertisers

    It's not sold to advertisers... Facebook is an advertiser. Don't allow this bullshit "Facebook only helps the advertisers" meme stand. Make Facebook own their shit.

    Also, they're never going to sell data on you, cause renting it is far more profitable.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  18. This is perfect; now do it for "any" site. by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 2

    This is perfect. Although I don't use FB at all (it's so toxic that I block all of their domains and networks at the firewall) ... there are other sites that I'd like to be able to run "in a sandbox". Yes, I can open a Private Browsing window (or Incognito in chrome's parlance) but it's definitely time to have browser sandboxes that can isolate sites from each other. The trackers have become too powerful and we all need to start resisting them.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    1. Re:This is perfect; now do it for "any" site. by lhunath · · Score: 1

      You're essentially asking for Firefox's containers. They are included by default with the browser (just not enabled).

      Which incidentally is exactly what this add-on enables for you and uses for the facebook.com domain only (it creates a Facebook container for you).

      https://wiki.mozilla.org/Secur...

      --
      ``OK, so ten out of ten for style, but minus several million for good thinking, yeah?''
  19. Just use Privacy Mode / Incognito mode / whatever by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    It's amazing how much effort people put into making a broken service usable. Just stop using Facebook.

    As for other web sites, just use the browser's privacy mode. It's a minor inconvenience since you lose your browser history, but it isn't worth it. If that really matters, just clear your cookies every day. Years ago, clearing your cookies every time you closed the browser, or every 24 hours, was an option in Firefox. It meant web sites worked but you had to login once a day. Seemed like a good compromise, so it is a shame they removed it.

  20. Mozilla is not financially able to resist Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because nearly ALL of Mozilla's revenue comes from Google default search contracts.

    One of the biggest things Mozilla could possibly do for its user base would be to renegotiate the contract with Google to make StartPage the default search engine in Firefox. Google still makes money, Mozilla would still make money (albeit somewhat less), and it would be a HUGE step for privacy for tens of millions of people.

    Can we please get Mozilla to comment publicly on this? Why not StartPage?

  21. Re:You have to draw the line somewhere. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As far as I know, Google hasn't enabled the election of a moron to president like Facebook has. Everything else, I can forgive.

    Google tried to enable the election of a homicidal maniac. Fortunately, they failed.

  22. Brave is where it's at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mozilla started going downhill after Brendan Eich was forced out. Brave is going to overhaul the browser industry.

  23. Re:You have to draw the line somewhere. by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

    As far as I know, Google hasn't enabled the election of a moron to president like Facebook has. Everything else, I can forgive.

    Well, it's a good job Facebook failed and that America elected its current stable genius. Yes, he's doing a lot of harm but that the world (and by "the world" I mean "Murica" because that's all there is, right?) hasn't ended already is testament to how little actual power POTUS' have.

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
  24. Re: Great! Now add a Google container and we're se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why needs containers when APK's HOSTS File Engine is available? My browsing is free from all tracking, and FAST since all blocking is done at the kernel level.

    APK for FCC Chairman 2020! Get this man a gianter sized mug and make this happen, Trump!

  25. I question the whole ideology... by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 2

    OK, Facebook sucks but then so do Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Oracle, etc.. We're supposed to believe that the internet is a revolutionary force for good and that it's making the world a better place. Yeah, right. Keep drinking the cool-aid https://youtu.be/4tLvzyb3_Uc?t...

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
  26. Re: Great! Now add a Google container and we're se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uBlock Origin

  27. Another solution that doesn't require Firefox... by Ross+Finlayson · · Score: 1

    Add the following to your /etc/hosts file:
    0.0.0.0 connect.facebook.com
    0.0.0.0 static.ak.connect.facebook.com
    0.0.0.0 api.connect.facebook.com
    0.0.0.0 ssl.connect.facebook.com
    0.0.0.0 www.connect.facebook.com
    0.0.0.0 graph.facebook.com
    0.0.0.0 connect.facebook.net

  28. Re:Just use Privacy Mode / Incognito mode / whatev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just checked, both Firefox 59.0.1 and Firefox ESR 52.7.0 both still have the option to clear cookies when the browser is closed. I've never seen an option for every 24 hours.

  29. Use a separate browser for Facebook by InterGuru · · Score: 1

    I use Opera exclusively for FB and nothing else. That blocks tracking.

    1. Re:Use a separate browser for Facebook by Dwedit · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. If you load any third-party content from FB's servers from the same IP address, they can tell.

  30. Worthless in a few months by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will do nothing. In a few months instead of talking directly to Facebook it will just use a proxy server or the website server youâ(TM)re viewing the page on to begin with. There is nothing Mozilla can do about that.

  31. Or, do what I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or, do what I do: just use a separate browser with a separate profile for facebook and nothing else.

  32. So... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    What social media platform are people switching to in order to replace Facebook? I've already signed up for Mastodon. I just wish Facebook wasn't used as the default user authentication mechanism for so many websites -- 'net identity and social media should be completely separate functions. from separate providers that don't have a vested interest in your data.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to look into GNU Ring, but mostly I do not use anything at all not even Steam.

  33. Re:Just use Privacy Mode / Incognito mode / whatev by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    Oh good, thanks. The 24-hours option was my favorite, since I didn't have to close the browser every day, and if I closed it in the middle of the day I didn't have to log back in. But that option might have been in Netscape but never in Firefox.

  34. Re:Another solution that doesn't require Firefox.. by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    Thanks.
    Here's some footnotes to your advice: https://news.ycombinator.com/i... .

  35. RequestPolicy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The RequestPolicy extension does this. I've been using it or a continuation of it for years. If I visit a website, and it wants to connect to Facebook, that request is automatically denied. Same with Google. If I decide I need Facebook or Google functionality on a certain page, I allow it for that domain only (on a temporary or permanent basis). I don't need a specific "container" for Facebook, because it is contained everywhere.

  36. Re:You have to draw the line somewhere. by schwit1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    That would be Obama in 2012. His team used FB similar to Trump's team but it was called a genius move.

    And FB was in the pocket of Hillary's team

  37. Why is Mozilla trying to make Facebook better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It you don't trust Facebook, don't use it. If some other site loads tracking code from FB, avoid that site too as it can't be trusted for betraying the privacy of its users.

  38. Re:You have to draw the line somewhere. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As far as I know,

    Correct. You don't know.

  39. WE didn't, THEY did. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And by they I mean the teeming unintellectual masses who we foolishly recruited into our international pool of former awesomeness.

    The worst thing to happen to the internet was the commercialization of it. While early on it gave people without government/corporate/school based access to it, it also started letting the sickness from outside in. Rather than merely a few griefers we got masses of hate, corporatism and authoritarian apologists all overpowering our collective voice, along with people too stupid to understand why certain etiquette or informal codes of conduct were in place. Now those idiots have made the informal formal, and begun us on the long march to gentrification of the internet, making it just as pointless as IRL.

  40. Re: Great! Now add a Google container and we're se by yuvcifjt · · Score: 2

    No, Windows 10 bypasses the "kernel level" hosts file.

    And mozilla may also plan to perhaps bypass the local dns resolver in favour of "Trusted Recursive Resolver".

    APK: if you can invent an app to block domains/ip's at the router level for virtually any router on the market, then that would be something special and worth all your advertising time in comments! ;)

  41. Re:You have to draw the line somewhere. by satcat · · Score: 4, Informative

    Obama's campaign app asked for the information directly, and prompted users to send campaign messages to particular friends. Cambridge Analytica's data was acquired from a personality quiz (in violation of facebook policies, but CA didn't delete the data when requested), and used to plant fear-mongering ads. The former is at least somewhat honest. http://www.politifact.com/trut...

  42. Working on the technology for several years? by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

    Ridiculous, it shouldn't be that difficult.

  43. I think this kicked-in when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mozilla inexplicably removed the ability to diable Javascript, and stopped blocking pop-ups (even though they still pretend to have this latter option).

    NONE of this badness can happen without the cooperation of the browsers. There's no way a site can pop-up ANYTHING on your screen without the browser enabling it. There's no way a wbe page can store ANYTHING on your machine, or get any information from your machine, without the browser enabling it. There is simply no reason a browser must allow a web page to load hundreds of scripts, run video ads, overlay transparent invisible pixels, go to google or facebook to load crap, etc without the consent of the owner of the machine.

    This idea that Mozilla will add a feature to deal with ONE site (Facebook) is MORONIC and a scam; It's a pretense based on the current Facebook/Cambridge Analytic-related panic. Why add ANY code to hande a specific website? That's contrary to the basic IDEA of a web browser which is to be a generic data browsing tool that works the same for any pages. Are the Mozilla people being incentivised to restrict any "fix" to only affect Facebook and not some (or all?) other bad actors?????