Comment by forca | Hacker News Reader

Comment by forca | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

For me, the Internet is largely unusable without adblock at the very least. I removed Ghostery and started using Disconnect instead. It does a much better job methinks.

In addition to this on Firefox at least I invoke about:config and make several settings changes:

- I disable prefetch.

- I disable media.peerconnect.

- I disable geo tracking.

- I disable HTTP/S referer.

- I disable DOM storage.

- I disable visited link tracking.

I also use EasyList, EasyPrivacy, and Malware domains adblock subscriptions.

In addition, as a Linux user, I want to use Flash on those sites that use it, but I don't want to deal with LSOs tracking me, so I take advantage of Flash by sending those LSOs to /dev/null. The Website is none the wiser and I get the benefit of the Website.

rm -rf .adobe

rm -rf .macromedia

ln -s /dev/null .adobe

ln -s /dev/null .macromedia

Surf with relative comfort knowing that you've already paid for your Internet connection with cash, no need to give away more of your privacy than needed. Blocking ads is great if you use any social media, as you don't have to see the sodden ads.

I use several web browsers, so rather than installing a different 'adblock' plugin for each one, I use Dan Pollock's excellent list as part of my hosts file:

  http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/

(Mentioned in HN previously.)

Works well for MacOS X, Linux and Windows, and doesn't care what browser you're using.

I have been using it for 3+ years now without any problems.

I have a script to toggle moving the file out of the way and then back again, mostly so that I can give ad revenue to those sites that I feel are deserving.

I have toyed with the idea of using hosts files instead, but what bothers me is the lack of daily updates. Granted, there is so much bad crap out there that it's impossible to avoid it all.

Another thing I want to do is find a router that allows host files and script regular updates. It would be great to never have to install extensions or tinker with hosts file for every box on the network. I've also said I'd be interested in seeing a proxy server that strips out all of this stuff so no maintenance on the user end is required.

A bit of a late reply, but I have switched to using this on my home LAN now: https://github.com/jodrell/unbound-block-hosts

Basically, a Perl script to massage the data from Dan Pollock's list into a format suitable for unbound (http://www.unbound.net/)

You could also use a global proxy, with a PAC filtering out those ads.

You might also want to block some automatic connections in Firefox http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/02/block-automatic-connections...

Why do you find Disconnect.me better than Ghostery? I tried the former for a few days, but found its UI unwieldy, and couldn't find a way to disable just some things for specific sites (e.g. Disqus comments).

Ghostery is owned by a company that has ties to ad networks. I am, by principle, opposed to ads in Web content, so I want to use a product that loathes the idea as much as I do.

I have the right to browse the Internet without being tracked, my data sold without my permissions, have targeted ads delivered my way, you name it.

I've often thought about setting up a colo proxy server for people that strips out all ads, beacons, tracking cookies, you name it -- and give it away for free. With cheap hosting and unlimited bandwidth, this could be a good thing.

Disabling media.peerconnect does nothing to improve your anonymity. peerconnect (and, well, all websockets datachannels) requires user action to be enabled

One word: webrtc

Can have security issues if not done correctly.

http://techpageone.dell.com/technology/open-source-webrtc-cr...

Uh, that entire article is FUD and bullshit.

Care to elaborate on your claim? It's one thing to claim it's FUD, but yet another to refute it.

The entire premise is that somehow hole punching is dangerous and unstoppable with webrtc. Enterprise grade NAT environments can easily deal with both STUN and TURN hole punching.

If leaking internal IP's from your network is a security risk, you need to reevaluate what you're calling "security".

None of the article's concerns are concerns to any competent sysamin

E: replaced 'exposing' to 'leaking' to avoid confusion

To clarify (because I misunderstood the meaning of the comment before clicking the link), the parent is referring to leaking the IP addresses themselves, not 'exposing' access to them.

Yeah, I see how my wording is confusing. I've edited my post to use leaking instead of exposing

Almost all of those can be reversed by one malicious extension.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com