10:52 p.m.
For those that like to control how sites track you, you may want to
think again about using Firefox 44.
As of now, the cookies settings don't have the option to "Ask Me Every
Time"
Choice is to accept or deny all cookies from a site.
I for one, like to know if I am being asked for cookies or not from a
site and accept at my preference.
This is the "bug" discussing this change. If this is important to you,
then please add your comments.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/process_bug.cgi
10:58 p.m.
Why would they remove it? Was it a big maintenance burden? Seems
something reasonable to keep around.
12:02 a.m.
On 02/02/16 21:58, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
Why would they remove it? Was it a big maintenance burden? Seems
something reasonable to keep around.
There was an issue with poorly written sites opening hundreds of cookie
requests. So to fix that problem they now have two choices.
Accept or don't accept.
Also, if you choose accept, it defaults to accept third party cookies as
well.
As I said, post your comments on the bug 660507.
I have added the proper link this time.
Must have been screwed up due to cookie issues.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=660507
12:13 a.m.
On 02/02/16 23:02, Robin Laing wrote:
On 02/02/16 21:58, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
> Why would they remove it? Was it a big maintenance burden? Seems
> something reasonable to keep around.
>
There was an issue with poorly written sites opening hundreds of cookie
requests. So to fix that problem they now have two choices.
Accept or don't accept.
Also, if you choose accept, it defaults to accept third party cookies as
well.
As I said, post your comments on the bug 660507.
I have added the proper link this time.
Must have been screwed up due to cookie issues.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=606655
It is really 606655
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=606655
I have tested the link this time.
This is a pain. I am frustrated and my productivity has taken a nose dive.
Robin
4:35 a.m.
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:13:30PM -0700, Robin Laing wrote:
This is a pain. I am frustrated and my productivity has taken a
nose
dive.
I'm curious. Why not use one of the many more sophisticated cookie
manager add-ons?
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=cookie&appver=30.0...
These are generally much better than the default "ask every time"
experience _anyway_.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
8:33 a.m.
On 02/03/16 04:35, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:13:30PM -0700, Robin Laing wrote:
> This is a pain. I am frustrated and my productivity has taken a nose
> dive.
I'm curious. Why not use one of the many more sophisticated cookie
manager add-ons?
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=cookie&appver=30.0...
These are generally much better than the default "ask every time"
experience _anyway_.
.
+1 on the sophisticated cookie managers.
best 2 that i have found allow removal of site cookies, and enable/disable
collecting of cookies.
_____
mozilla add-ons related to removing cookies:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=Remove+Cookies+for+sit...
add-on to remove site cookies;
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/remove-cookies-for-site/
_____
add-on to enable/disable java/javascript and cookies:
quickjava 2.0.7 for firefox ver 40.x;
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/quickjava/
_____
quickjava site:
http://quickjavaplugin.blogspot.com/
quickjava for firefox ver 38.x and below;
http://quickjavaplugin.blogspot.com/2014/12/bug-fixes-in-206.html
after installing, managing of cookies has been
--
peace out.
If Bill Gates got a dime for every time Windows crashes...
...oh, wait. He does. THAT explains it!
-+-
in a world with out fences, who needs gates.
CentOS GNU/Linux 6.7
tc,hago.
g
.
9:42 p.m.
On 03/02/16 07:33, g wrote:
On 02/03/16 04:35, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:13:30PM -0700, Robin Laing wrote:
>> This is a pain. I am frustrated and my productivity has taken a nose
>> dive.
>
> I'm curious. Why not use one of the many more sophisticated cookie
> manager add-ons?
>
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=cookie&appver=30.0...
>
> These are generally much better than the default "ask every time"
> experience _anyway_.
>
.
+1 on the sophisticated cookie managers.
best 2 that i have found allow removal of site cookies, and enable/disable
collecting of cookies.
_____
mozilla add-ons related to removing cookies:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=Remove+Cookies+for+sit...
add-on to remove site cookies;
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/remove-cookies-for-site/
_____
add-on to enable/disable java/javascript and cookies:
quickjava 2.0.7 for firefox ver 40.x;
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/quickjava/
_____
quickjava site:
http://quickjavaplugin.blogspot.com/
quickjava for firefox ver 38.x and below;
http://quickjavaplugin.blogspot.com/2014/12/bug-fixes-in-206.html
after installing, managing of cookies has been
I only see one that looks like it will give me Ask Me Every Time.
Cookie Controller
--
Save money, use Open Source Software.
Free Office Suite at
http://www.libreoffice.org
2:18 p.m.
On 02/04/16 21:42, Robin Laing wrote:
I only see one that looks like it will give me Ask Me Every Time.
Cookie Controller
.
this is true. if you want to make a selection every time you load a
site and change pages.
tried that some years ago with a diff add-on and soon tired of having
to click a choice.
such led me to use the java buttons with [C] (enable/disable cookies)
set to disable. when i do hit a site that "can not live with cookies",
i click [C] to enable. before i leave site and wanted to clear cookies,
i click 'cookie' icon to remove them and toggle [C] to turn back off.
along with doing online banking, i frequently use sites such as search
engines and sites that require joining and require that cookies be enabled.
over time, i have come to remember which sites need cookies for login.
when i use search sites, after entering search info and <enter> and list
page loads, i disable cookies and check hits, most of which i leave cookies
disabled, unless it is another "can not live with cookies".
something that amazes me is that with all the add-ons that have been
written for cookie handling, none have a feature that ties in to url
bar or bookmarks that will disable/enable cookies with out user having
to make selection.
--
peace out.
If Bill Gates got a dime for every time Windows crashes...
...oh, wait. He does. THAT explains it!
-+-
in a world with out fences, who needs gates.
CentOS GNU/Linux 6.7
tc,hago.
g
.
2:54 p.m.
On 02/04/16 21:42, Robin Laing wrote:
I only see one that looks like it will give me Ask Me Every Time.
Cookie Controller
.
this is true. if you want to make a selection every time you load a
site and change pages.
tried that some years ago with a diff add-on and soon tired of having
to click a choice.
such led me to use the java buttons with [C] (enable/disable cookies)
set to disable. when i do hit a site that "can not live with cookies",
i click [C] to enable. before i leave site and wanted to clear cookies,
i click 'cookie' icon to remove them and toggle [C] to turn back off.
along with doing online banking, i frequently use sites such as search
engines and sites that require joining and require that cookies be enabled.
over time, i have come to remember which sites need cookies for login.
when i use search sites, after entering search info and <enter> and list
page loads, i disable cookies and check hits, most of which i leave cookies
disabled, unless it is another "can not live with cookies".
something that amazes me is that with all the add-ons that have been
written for cookie handling, none have a feature that ties in to url
bar or bookmarks that will disable/enable cookies with out user having
to make selection.
--
peace out.
If Bill Gates got a dime for every time Windows crashes...
...oh, wait. He does. THAT explains it!
-+-
in a world with out fences, who needs gates.
CentOS GNU/Linux 6.7
tc,hago.
g
.
12:30 a.m.
Allegedly, on or about 05 February 2016, g sent:
something that amazes me is that with all the add-ons that have been
written for cookie handling, none have a feature that ties in to url
bar or bookmarks that will disable/enable cookies with out user having
to make selection.
Allowing cookies for whitelisted URIs used to be a built-in feature to
most web browsers. It was how I handled things for ages. Deny or ask
by default, then I'd whitelist a few sites that I regularly wanted to
use in a less annoying way.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64
Boilerplate: All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is
no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see the messages
posted to the mailing list.
If you are not the intended recipient, why are you reading their email?
You bastard!
3:53 p.m.
On 05/02/16 23:30, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 05 February 2016, g sent:
> something that amazes me is that with all the add-ons that have been
> written for cookie handling, none have a feature that ties in to url
> bar or bookmarks that will disable/enable cookies with out user having
> to make selection.
Allowing cookies for whitelisted URIs used to be a built-in feature to
most web browsers. It was how I handled things for ages. Deny or ask
by default, then I'd whitelist a few sites that I regularly wanted to
use in a less annoying way.
Same here.
As the discussion has been moved to gmane, it is harder to comment. I
am not sure if the gmane is moderated or not but I wanted to make my
comments.
The response I am seeing is to just use the available addons but I am
not seeing any that add this feature.
I did recommend that Mozzila makes this a addon to resore the feature to
those that want it.
I have not had time to see if there is an addon that can restore the
preferences to a window as I now have it open almost all the time.
A link that they point to for removing features is this one.
http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/
But then add cross site scripting blocking that actually can break sites
as well.
Robin
4:39 p.m.
On 02/06/16 00:30, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 05 February 2016, g sent:
> something that amazes me is that with all the add-ons that have been
> written for cookie handling, none have a feature that ties in to url
> bar or bookmarks that will disable/enable cookies with out user having
> to make selection.
Allowing cookies for whitelisted URIs used to be a built-in feature to
most web browsers. It was how I handled things for ages. Deny or ask
by default, then I'd whitelist a few sites that I regularly wanted to
use in a less annoying way.
.
"whitelist" was a nice feature. using NoScript "whitelist" and
considering
asking them to add a sort by date column and a "blacklist".
firefox used to be a proficient and worthily web browser until chrome
web browser came about.
then firefox d.a. devs felt they had to be an "us too" browser and
screwed up the whole concept that firefox had enjoyed for many years.
now that they have started the "signed" add-on crap, i am giving much
thought to check out the "clones" and be done with the "clowns".
--
peace out.
If Bill Gates got a dime for every time Windows crashes...
...oh, wait. He does. THAT explains it!
-+-
in a world with out fences, who needs gates.
CentOS GNU/Linux 6.7
tc,hago.
g
.
7:42 p.m.
On 03/02/16 03:35, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:13:30PM -0700, Robin Laing wrote:
> This is a pain. I am frustrated and my productivity has taken a nose
> dive.
I'm curious. Why not use one of the many more sophisticated cookie
manager add-ons?
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=cookie&appver=30.0...
These are generally much better than the default "ask every time"
experience _anyway_.
Because, up until this occurred, I was happy with the way things worked.
It was nice to see my system work the way it was supposed to without
needing different add-ins which could cause issues in the future. I
have run into add-ins that conflicted with each other in the past and to
me, this WAS a feature that worked as advertised and prevented me from
having issues.
If you run into issues with Firefox, you have to disable your plugins to
test and that can be it's own headache.
I will be looking at plugins now that give me the same feature as Ask Me
Every Time.
Robin
6:55 a.m.
Allegedly, on or about 02 February 2016, Robin Laing sent:
There was an issue with poorly written sites opening hundreds of
cookie requests.
Sometimes I think sites do that on purpose, to attack people who
selectively choose their cookies.
I used to use the option to ask about all cookies, but caved-in to
changing the preferences to allowing cookies for just one session
(expunge on exit), thanks to crap like that (that option will probably
disappear, too).
Unfortunately, this means you get tracked, and you get more internet
crap in your mail, and targeted adverts, from that. It's quite
disturbing to find while you're browsing some site that you consider to
be completely unrelated to something else that you logged into early,
that you've been identified by the earlier sites (you don't get asked to
sign in, to the sites you browse, later on, there's a "hello Tim"
already in that spot).
It's just a shame there aren't reversed HTTP error codes that hit the
server. Error 101 your site is fucked.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64
Boilerplate: All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is
no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see the messages
posted to the mailing list.
If you are not the intended recipient, why are you reading their email?
You bastard!
7:31 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
It's just a shame there aren't reversed HTTP error codes that hit the
server. Error 101 your site is fucked.
It is a shame crappy sites (not to mention crappy software) like that
exist. I am happy not to be the responsible for this shit.
P.S.: 101 is already taken. You likely know this, but just for the
sake of pedantry.
--
Bernardo Sulzbach
7:33 a.m.
So, because some websites, purposely or not, are bad designed, the web
browser must change?
F*** logic! At least, they could warn us. If I don't receive this
email I would never know.
Cheers,
Sylvia
PS: sorry for the cursing.
7:38 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Sylvia Sánchez <lailahfsf(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So, because some websites, purposely or not, are bad designed, the
web
browser must change?
Yes. Logically, yes. They are web browsers. Fully fledged humongous
programs that do everything you need to **browse** the web as it is.
Those websites are part of the web, a web browser must be good enough
to deal with all of it.
Whether or not "accept all cookies" is a convenience worth the privacy
is up to each one of us.
--
Bernardo Sulzbach
10:51 a.m.
What about adding one of those sophisticated cookie managers to the browser
as default?
Just an idea.
Sylvia
On Wednesday, 3 February 2016, Heinz Diehl <htd+ml(a)fritha.org> wrote:
On 03.02.2016, Sylvia Sánchez wrote:
> And it's impossible to add a workaround instead of taking options away?
A simple counter would do..
--
users mailing list
users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org <javascript:;>
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
11:18 a.m.
On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 23:25:33 +1030
Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 02 February 2016, Robin Laing sent:
> There was an issue with poorly written sites opening hundreds of
> cookie requests.
Sometimes I think sites do that on purpose, to attack people who
selectively choose their cookies.
I used to use the option to ask about all cookies, but caved-in to
changing the preferences to allowing cookies for just one session
(expunge on exit), thanks to crap like that (that option will probably
disappear, too).
Unfortunately, this means you get tracked, and you get more internet
crap in your mail, and targeted adverts, from that. It's quite
disturbing to find while you're browsing some site that you consider
to be completely unrelated to something else that you logged into
early, that you've been identified by the earlier sites (you don't
get asked to sign in, to the sites you browse, later on, there's a
"hello Tim" already in that spot).
I doubt that you are experiencing traditional cookie tracking. There
are two other ways of tracking that are much more effective: flash
cookies and html5 storage.
The add-on betterprivacy removes flash cookies (LSO cookies) whenever
the browser is closed, or with other settings, including a timer.
The add-on self-destructingcookies removes cookies whenever a site is
closed (the site tab, not the browser).
You should look at an add-on called privacy badger. It is sort of AI,
and monitors links. If they exhibit behavior that a tracking site
would, it blocks them. I can no longer read the site forbes.com
because it thinks I have adblocker turned on. I don't, but privacy
badger is blocking the ad trackers that would allow ads, so they don't
show up.
Unfortunately, I'm not aware of an add-on that blocks html5 storage.
Html5 allows websites to store their information on your computer in a
reserved area. I presume it was justified with some kind of
persistence or convenience argument, but I think it is inviting abuse.
I remember that I went into about:config and turned off html5 storage
somehow, but I don't remember the details; I think I just searched on
html5 and there was an entry with storage that I set to false, but it
might have been setting the storage size to zero.
Never!, I repeat never!, allow the site addthis.com to access your
computer. It uses browser fingerprinting to track your web usage.
NoScript seems to adequately prevent it, and I think privacybadger has
it blocked out of the box.
If you don't go with PrivacyBadger, Ghostery is also a good way to
block third party tracking sites, though it uses a look up list rather
than real time determination.
HTH
11:54 a.m.
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, stan wrote:
If you don't go with PrivacyBadger, Ghostery is also a good way to
block third party tracking sites, though it uses a look up list rather
than real time determination.
HTH
This is a little off-topic for fedora, but since you mentioned it I have
to ask. I use Ghostery a lot. Is PrivacyBadger compatible with it, or
is it a one-or-the-other-but-not-both kind of thing?
billo
12:16 p.m.
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:54:33 -0600 (CST)
vendor(a)billoblog.com wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, stan wrote:
>
> If you don't go with PrivacyBadger, Ghostery is also a good way to
> block third party tracking sites, though it uses a look up list
> rather than real time determination.
>
> HTH
>
This is a little off-topic for fedora, but since you mentioned it I
have to ask. I use Ghostery a lot. Is PrivacyBadger compatible with
it, or is it a one-or-the-other-but-not-both kind of thing?
They'll run at the same time (I've done it). But, I think that ghostery
will prevent privacybadger from learning, since it will block the sites
on its list, so privacybadger won't ever see them to determine their
behavior, and decide whether to block them. Sites that ghostery doesn't
block will be monitored by privacybadger, though, so it could be
considered a belt and suspenders arrangement. But, if it has never been
trained by raw exposure, privacybadger shouldn't be run without the
accompanying add-ons of its training. e.g. if it has always been run
with ghostery present, don't put it on a system without ghostery
also present (unless you want to retrain it).
1:13 p.m.
On 02/03/2016 09:54 AM, vendor(a)billoblog.com wrote:
>
This is a little off-topic for fedora, but since you mentioned it I have
to ask. I use Ghostery a lot. Is PrivacyBadger compatible with it, or
is it a one-or-the-other-but-not-both kind of thing?
I use both without trouble, if that helps.
5:17 a.m.
On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 10:18 -0700, stan wrote:
I doubt that you are experiencing traditional cookie tracking.
Hmm, I reckon they probably still do that.
There are two other ways of tracking that are much more effective:
flash cookies and html5 storage.
Since I block Flash, by default, few things should abuse me via that
route. I've not kept up to speed with HTML5, though. I'll look into
the privacy add-ons you discussed.
If they exhibit behavior that a tracking site would, it blocks them.
I can no longer read the site forbes.com because it thinks I have
adblocker turned on. I don't, but privacy badger is blocking the ad
trackers that would allow ads, so they don't show up.
Yes, I see more and more of that kind of thing (sites that deliberately
fail, lock you out, or are utterly scrambled when you block the half
dozen CPU-sapping scripts that they run). The trouble is, it's not just
odd-ball sites that do that. You find you can't read the news, buy
stuff on-line from your shops on-line store, etc. I suspect that's down
to idiot-level turn-key webstore services, which simply make use of a
lot of external pre-programmed scripts, rather than do it all on the
website.
Something as benign as shop.abc.net.au (our national television
broadcasters online sales), is an example of something that goes right
out of kilter when you block all these annoyances.
Never!, I repeat never!, allow the site addthis.com to access your
computer. It uses browser fingerprinting to track your web usage.
NoScript seems to adequately prevent it, and I think privacybadger has
it blocked out of the box.
And there's the rub, these days. Now that dial-up is dying off, many
users have persistent IPs (not quite static, but most likely to keep on
using the same IP). You can't just block something once it's touched
you, wipe your cache, and be a new anonymous person on your next
session. And thanks to browsers with tabs, or multiple windows that do
not act like isolated programs, one session can last a very long time,
as you close your window with your bank, but other windows remain open.
I wonder if any browsers have a randomiser in them to jiggle the
tell-tale signs that browser fingerprinting makes use of?
--
tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.19.8-100.fc20.i686 #1 SMP Tue May 12 17:42:35 UTC 2015 i686
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point trying
to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the public lists.
George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not
a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments.
8:36 a.m.
After (two?) mentions to Google search, I wonder if any you know of
any paid web search engines? I've used Google search 140 times on the
last 24 hours according to my history, so if they ask for more than
some cents per query I wouldn't be able to afford it.
Tim, it's not "just a privacy issue" for the average person. Being
tracked **is** an issue, even if you have not committed any serious
crimes and are not researching anything illegal, you should be able to
find web pages anonymously.
However, for the folks who have their entire lives on Instagram and
Facebook privacy may not be of uttermost concern.
8:50 a.m.
On 2/4/2016 9:36 AM, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
After (two?) mentions to Google search, I wonder if any you know of
any paid web search engines?
I don't know about search engines that cost money, but I do know of a
free one that is privacy oriented and it works really well:
https://duckduckgo.com/about
Tom
10:04 a.m.
Allegedly, on or about 04 February 2016, Tom Rivers sent:
I do know of a free one that is privacy oriented and it works really
well:
https://duckduckgo.com/about
I can't say that I find them anywhere near as good as Google. Much as
it pains me to say it.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64
Boilerplate: All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is
no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see the messages
posted to the mailing list.
Linux servers are always being dæmonised...
1:06 p.m.
On 16/02/05 02:34, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 04 February 2016, Tom Rivers sent:
> I do know of a free one that is privacy oriented and it works really
> well:
>
> https://duckduckgo.com/about
I can't say that I find them anywhere near as good as Google. Much as
it pains me to say it.
I have to say that I like Google more as well in terms of search
results. But I wonder if the tracking and analysing of its many many
users isn't the whole reason why they are so much better.
And no, I don't know of a paid search engine as well. I imagine that it
is pretty expensive to run a decent one and advertisers usually outbid
the potentially paying customers. And you cut into your own flesh if you
remove the ads and tracking for some paying customers since your
advertising could potentially shrink in negotiations with your major real
customer the advertiser.
Niels
3:07 p.m.
On Fri, 05 Feb 2016 02:34:59 +1030
Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 04 February 2016, Tom Rivers sent:
> I do know of a free one that is privacy oriented and it works really
> well:
>
> https://duckduckgo.com/about
I can't say that I find them anywhere near as good as Google. Much as
it pains me to say it.
I generally use ixquick.com. They are also privacy oriented. As far as
I know, they actually access other search services, and launder the
results. They also allow the use of proxy addresses when viewing
results of queries. I notice that lately they have begun to show google
advertising with their results, but I think they still pass no
information and keep no user information around.
But, as you say, Google is the gold standard. They probably have more
storage and computing power than the US government, so they can really
slice and dice the data they gather.
2:26 p.m.
On 02/04/16 15:07, stan wrote:
<<>>
I notice that lately they have begun to show google advertising with
their results,
that is an interesting observation.
especially because i have run ixquick every day for past week and i saw
now such advertising.
granted, ixquick does show a star at end of hit link where if one moves
cursor over, it will show origin of hit. but that is it.
--
peace out.
If Bill Gates got a dime for every time Windows crashes...
...oh, wait. He does. THAT explains it!
-+-
in a world with out fences, who needs gates.
CentOS GNU/Linux 6.7
tc,hago.
g
.
2:54 p.m.
On 02/04/16 15:07, stan wrote:
<<>>
I notice that lately they have begun to show google advertising with
their results,
that is an interesting observation.
especially because i have run ixquick every day for past week and i saw
now such advertising.
granted, ixquick does show a star at end of hit link where if one moves
cursor over, it will show origin of hit. but that is it.
--
peace out.
If Bill Gates got a dime for every time Windows crashes...
...oh, wait. He does. THAT explains it!
-+-
in a world with out fences, who needs gates.
CentOS GNU/Linux 6.7
tc,hago.
g
.
7:44 p.m.
On 04/02/16 09:04, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 04 February 2016, Tom Rivers sent:
> I do know of a free one that is privacy oriented and it works really
> well:
>
> https://duckduckgo.com/about
I can't say that I find them anywhere near as good as Google. Much as
it pains me to say it.
I do dump on their feedback form on a regular basis when the searches
are garbage.
I also find Google garbage since they got rid of search within results.
They try to guess what I want and it just doesn't work. I have filled
out their feedback many times about poor search results as well.
90 % of what I do works well in duckduckgo.com.
I use the html version so I don't need to enable scripts for them.
Robin
1:11 p.m.
On 02/04/2016 06:50 AM, Tom Rivers wrote:
On 2/4/2016 9:36 AM, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
> After (two?) mentions to Google search, I wonder if any you know of
> any paid web search engines?
I don't know about search engines that cost money, but I do know of a
free one that is privacy oriented and it works really well:
https://duckduckgo.com/about
That one's good, but I prefer this:
https://startpage.com/
Not only is it https, it promises to keep no records of your searches or
even your IP. Yes, it takes advantage of Google, but all Google learns
is that they searched for something, not who they sent the results to.
Rather like an anonymous proxy for searching.
1:14 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Joe Zeff <joe(a)zeff.us> wrote:
Not only is it https, it promises to keep no records of your searches or
even your IP. Yes, it takes advantage of Google, but all Google learns is
that they searched for something, not who they sent the results to. Rather
like an anonymous proxy for searching.
DuckDuckGo is also HTTPS, if you were implying it was not. I
bookmarked it. The customization of DDG and the range of keyboard
shorcuts available are already good reasons to use it over Google. So
far, I haven't noticed any problems with it.
1:24 p.m.
On 02/04/2016 11:14 AM, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
DuckDuckGo is also HTTPS, if you were implying it was not. I
bookmarked it. The customization of DDG and the range of keyboard
shorcuts available are already good reasons to use it over Google. So
far, I haven't noticed any problems with it.
No, I not only knew it is, I could read it from the url.
7:48 p.m.
On 04/02/16 12:11, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 02/04/2016 06:50 AM, Tom Rivers wrote:
> On 2/4/2016 9:36 AM, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
>> After (two?) mentions to Google search, I wonder if any you know of
>> any paid web search engines?
>
> I don't know about search engines that cost money, but I do know of a
> free one that is privacy oriented and it works really well:
>
> https://duckduckgo.com/about
>
That one's good, but I prefer this:
https://startpage.com/
Not only is it https, it promises to keep no records of your searches or
even your IP. Yes, it takes advantage of Google, but all Google learns
is that they searched for something, not who they sent the results to.
Rather like an anonymous proxy for searching.
Interesting that ixquick.com and startpage.com are both pointed to in
this thread and they look exactly the same. Even their privacy
statements are the same bar names.
I think they are one and the same.
Even their contact is the same person.
robert @ startpage.com (From the privacy statement)
Robin
2:34 p.m.
On 02/04/16 19:48, Robin Laing wrote:
<<>>
Interesting that ixquick.com and startpage.com are both pointed to
in
this thread and they look exactly the same. Even their privacy statements
are the same bar names
.
have you run a check via a url/ip/whois server?
i believe not. ;-)
--
peace out.
If Bill Gates got a dime for every time Windows crashes...
...oh, wait. He does. THAT explains it!
-+-
in a world with out fences, who needs gates.
CentOS GNU/Linux 6.7
tc,hago.
g
.
3:07 p.m.
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 18:48:56 -0700
Robin Laing <MeSat(a)TelusPlanet.net> wrote:
Interesting that ixquick.com and startpage.com are both pointed to in
this thread and they look exactly the same. Even their privacy
statements are the same bar names.
I think they are one and the same.
Even their contact is the same person.
robert @ startpage.com (From the privacy statement)
From their site:
The search engine Ixquick (www.ixquick.com) is the world's most private
search engine. It focuses on delivering great search results with the
best possible privacy. Ixquick is known as StartPage in the United
States (www.startpage.com).
I wasn't even aware of startpage until I saw it in this thread. And I
thought it looked very familiar when I looked at it. :-)
2:08 p.m.
On 02/05/16 15:07, stan wrote:
<<>>
From their site:
The search engine Ixquick (www.ixquick.com) is the world's
most private search engine. It focuses on delivering great
search results with the best possible privacy. Ixquick is
known as StartPage in the United States (www.startpage.com).
I wasn't even aware of startpage until I saw it in this thread.
And I thought it looked very familiar when I looked at it. :-)
.
if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and water rolls
off it's back like a duck, it probably is a duck. ;-)
--
peace out.
If Bill Gates got a dime for every time Windows crashes...
...oh, wait. He does. THAT explains it!
-+-
in a world with out fences, who needs gates.
CentOS GNU/Linux 6.7
tc,hago.
g
.
3:37 a.m.
On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 11:11 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
Not only is it https, it promises to keep no records of your
searches
or even your IP
Do you believe that? Or anything said to you about a website's aims?
And even if it is a true statement, it's only valid *then*. They may do
something else next week.
--
tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.19.8-100.fc20.i686 #1 SMP Tue May 12 17:42:35 UTC 2015 i686
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point trying
to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the public lists.
George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not
a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments.
3:58 a.m.
On 02/05/2016 01:37 AM, Tim wrote:
On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 11:11 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
> Not only is it https, it promises to keep no records of your searches
> or even your IP
Do you believe that? Or anything said to you about a website's aims?
And even if it is a true statement, it's only valid *then*. They may do
something else next week.
I don't know if they're going to keep their promise or not, but I've got
more important things to worry about. Spending my life obsessing over
how to be perfectly safe from every possible threat has never appealed
to me especially when you consider how many things we can't protect
ourselves from. People in Florida have to worry about hurricanes every
year. In the Midwest it's tornadoes, in the north it's snow storms.
Where I live it's brush fires and earthquakes. Somehow, being afraid
that some search engine is going to sell my search history doesn't seem
like it's worth losing any sleep over. I do what I can, but it doesn't
bother me that there's only so much I can do. And, to be honest, I
neither spend that much time searching nor do I spend much time looking
for things to buy, so again, it's not that big a deal for me. YMMV, and
if you want to put more effort into hiding your searches than I do, go
right ahead. If you're that worried, do all of your searching at a
library or Starbucks using a LiveUSB so that not only isn't there a
trail to your IP, your browser history vanishes when you reboot.
10:10 a.m.
Allegedly, on or about 04 February 2016, Bernardo Sulzbach sent:
Tim, it's not "just a privacy issue" for the average
person. Being
tracked **is** an issue, even if you have not committed any serious
crimes and are not researching anything illegal, you should be able to
find web pages anonymously.
I don't know when privacy got redefined to mean something else, but
that's exactly the opposite of privacy. It's not something else.
Privacy - being left alone, undisturbed, not being spied on...
The tracking is insidious. All it takes is for a friend to say, "here
have a look at this Youtube link," and then any other time you browse
through Youtube similar things seem to crop up in the sidebar. Not much
of a problem if that happens to be your favourite music, but is if your
friend sent you to one of those stupid light your farts clips.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64
Boilerplate: All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is
no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see the messages
posted to the mailing list.
I don't think it's pure coincidence that "officialdom" sounds the same
as "official dumb."
10:15 a.m.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 04 February 2016, Bernardo Sulzbach sent:
> Tim, it's not "just a privacy issue" for the average person. Being
> tracked **is** an issue, even if you have not committed any serious
> crimes and are not researching anything illegal, you should be able to
> find web pages anonymously.
I don't know when privacy got redefined to mean something else, but
that's exactly the opposite of privacy. It's not something else.
I am not sure if you misunderstood me or I misunderstood you.
I agreed with what you said, I just do not like the phrasing "*just* a
privacy issue". A privacy issue **is** a big issue, even if it does
not put you in jail or on a wanted list.
YouTube content (for instance) should be tailored from your
subscriptions only, channels you stated to be interested in.
3:01 p.m.
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 21:47:00 +1030
Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 10:18 -0700, stan wrote:
> I doubt that you are experiencing traditional cookie tracking.
Hmm, I reckon they probably still do that.
I'd agree. But my bank, to increase security, tried to use both a
regular cookie and an LSO cookie. Fortunately, I convinced them that I
shouldn't have to have a third party private app installed to access
their website, and they removed it. Or, more likely, made the LSO
cookie non blocking.
[snip]
And there's the rub, these days. Now that dial-up is dying off,
many
users have persistent IPs (not quite static, but most likely to keep
on using the same IP). You can't just block something once it's
touched you, wipe your cache, and be a new anonymous person on your
next session. And thanks to browsers with tabs, or multiple windows
that do not act like isolated programs, one session can last a very
long time, as you close your window with your bank, but other windows
remain open.
Yeah, I used to have an ISP like that, same IP every time. Now, my ISP
gives me a random IP from their range every time I log on to their
network.
I tend to keep only minimal tabs open, not because of privacy primarily,
but because I don't like the clutter. I have read that there have been
exploits that allowed a website running malicious scripts to gather
information from other open tabs in the browser, but I think those are
fixed now.
Once we are using IPv6, though, everyone will probably get assigned an
IP address at birth, and keep it for their whole life. :-) Sayanora
privacy, and welcome to the goldfish bowl. Maybe some enterprising
souls will start a site that operates as a nat or proxy for IPv6, so
that everything goes through their randomly assigned IPv6 IP addresses,
and routes the information to the real address anonymously to the
queried website.
I wonder if any browsers have a randomiser in them to jiggle the
tell-tale signs that browser fingerprinting makes use of?
I'm not aware of a plug in that does that, though I think it is
possible to change some of the information the browser gives out. The
trouble is that website client side apps have to know what's available
for their use, so they are allowed to query the browser to find out the
environment they are operating in. And once they do, they have the
browser fingerprint. So, the trackers piggyback on that to find the
environment as a fingerprint. If the environment is blocked to stop the
trackers, the legitimate apps won't be able to function properly.
7:45 p.m.
On 04/02/16 14:01, stan wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 21:47:00 +1030
Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 10:18 -0700, stan wrote:
>> I doubt that you are experiencing traditional cookie tracking.
>
> Hmm, I reckon they probably still do that.
I'd agree. But my bank, to increase security, tried to use both a
regular cookie and an LSO cookie. Fortunately, I convinced them that I
shouldn't have to have a third party private app installed to access
their website, and they removed it. Or, more likely, made the LSO
cookie non blocking.
[snip]
> And there's the rub, these days. Now that dial-up is dying off, many
> users have persistent IPs (not quite static, but most likely to keep
> on using the same IP). You can't just block something once it's
> touched you, wipe your cache, and be a new anonymous person on your
> next session. And thanks to browsers with tabs, or multiple windows
> that do not act like isolated programs, one session can last a very
> long time, as you close your window with your bank, but other windows
> remain open.
Yeah, I used to have an ISP like that, same IP every time. Now, my ISP
gives me a random IP from their range every time I log on to their
network.
I tend to keep only minimal tabs open, not because of privacy primarily,
but because I don't like the clutter. I have read that there have been
exploits that allowed a website running malicious scripts to gather
information from other open tabs in the browser, but I think those are
fixed now.
Once we are using IPv6, though, everyone will probably get assigned an
IP address at birth, and keep it for their whole life. :-) Sayanora
privacy, and welcome to the goldfish bowl. Maybe some enterprising
souls will start a site that operates as a nat or proxy for IPv6, so
that everything goes through their randomly assigned IPv6 IP addresses,
and routes the information to the real address anonymously to the
queried website.
>
> I wonder if any browsers have a randomiser in them to jiggle the
> tell-tale signs that browser fingerprinting makes use of?
I'm not aware of a plug in that does that, though I think it is
possible to change some of the information the browser gives out. The
trouble is that website client side apps have to know what's available
for their use, so they are allowed to query the browser to find out the
environment they are operating in. And once they do, they have the
browser fingerprint. So, the trackers piggyback on that to find the
environment as a fingerprint. If the environment is blocked to stop the
trackers, the legitimate apps won't be able to function properly.
I have used "modify headers" plugin off and on.
May be something you want to look at.
Robin
4:20 a.m.
Tim:
> I wonder if any browsers have a randomiser in them to jiggle the
> tell-tale signs that browser fingerprinting makes use of?
stan:
I'm not aware of a plug in that does that, though I think it is
possible to change some of the information the browser gives out. The
trouble is that website client side apps have to know what's available
for their use, so they are allowed to query the browser to find out
the environment they are operating in. And once they do, they have
the browser fingerprint. So, the trackers piggyback on that to find
the environment as a fingerprint. If the environment is blocked to
stop the trackers, the legitimate apps won't be able to function
properly.
I wonder how many sites actually do "content negotiation" properly?
(The proper name for that activity.)
Sites are well known to just give you their pages, and throw files at
you, no matter what. Browsers are well known to say they accept */*,
rather than limit the list to their known abilities. About the only
differences I know of, these days, are sites that may automatically send
a different version to small screen mobile devices.
e.g. You still get sent flash, even if you didn't have a plugin for it
installed. The "do you want to install it?" prompts are also sent to
everybody, they just don't show up if you had a Flash player installed.
--
tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.19.8-100.fc20.i686 #1 SMP Tue May 12 17:42:35 UTC 2015 i686
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point trying
to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the public lists.
George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not
a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments.
3:01 p.m.
On Fri, 05 Feb 2016 20:50:41 +1030
Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
I wonder how many sites actually do "content negotiation"
properly?
(The proper name for that activity.)
Sites are well known to just give you their pages, and throw files at
you, no matter what. Browsers are well known to say they accept */*,
rather than limit the list to their known abilities. About the only
differences I know of, these days, are sites that may automatically
send a different version to small screen mobile devices.
e.g. You still get sent flash, even if you didn't have a plugin for it
installed. The "do you want to install it?" prompts are also sent to
everybody, they just don't show up if you had a Flash player
installed.
It's amazing it all works as well as it does. And not surprising that
there are occasional glitches.
11:44 a.m.
On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 23:25:33 +1030
Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Unfortunately, this means you get tracked, and you get more internet
A side note. You probably already know this, but if you don't want to
be tracked, Google is not your friend. Their product is your privacy.
They pay for it with lots of free services, so it is a decision to take
whether to accept the amount or not. Yes, they make lots of
announcements that they obfuscate data to make personal
identification impossible. But the more they identify about
you, the more they get paid. Conflict of interest there. I
try to keep off Google's radar as much as possible.
5:04 a.m.
Tim:
> Unfortunately, this means you get tracked, and you get more
internet
stan:
A side note. You probably already know this, but if you don't
want to
be tracked, Google is not your friend.
Yes. Unfortunately, it is the best search engine I've played with.
Their old "don't be evil" mantra went down in flames long ago. And if
you use other Google-related services (gmail, YouTube, their app store,
and probably a pile of others that I don't know about), you just add
more data about yourself to them. And, of course, you may use
completely independent services, thinking that you're isolated, only to
see them get bought out by big brother (and I mean that in the Orwellian
sense), later on.
For the general public, this is just a privacy issue. Corporations
being way too nosey about your business, and whether they keep that data
safe (which nobody seems to manage to achieve). But for anybody who's
vulnerable because of what their government will do, or if they're some
kind of activist that something other than their government is a worry,
the stakes are a lot higher. For them, most modern forms of
communication, even just research, is out of the question.
Their product is your privacy.
There's an old adage: Any time the product is free, *you* are the
product.
Ha! My auto fortune tagline selector got the appropriate one by random
chance. Or did it?
--
tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.19.8-100.fc20.i686 #1 SMP Tue May 12 17:42:35 UTC 2015 i686
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point trying
to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the public lists.
George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not
a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments.
3008
days inactive
3012
days old
50 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Bernardo Sulzbach -
g -
Heinz Diehl -
Joe Zeff -
Matthew Miller -
Niels Kobschaetzki -
Robin Laing -
stan -
Sylvia Sánchez -
Tim -
Tom Rivers -
William Oliver