Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Take a look at GoogleSharing, a way to anonymize your Google traffic.
Haven't tried it, but the release notes for version 0.13 released jan 21st says it supports 3.6 now.
I imagine this to be a temporary solution at best - Google will not lose an arms race when its business is being threatened. That said, I'll certainly try it out.
I imagine this to be a temporary solution at best - Google will not lose an arms race when its business is being threatened. That said, I'll certainly try it out.
I missed that news. The only ones that don't work with 3.6 is SSL Blacklist, LogMeIn, and Power Twitter.
Comodo verification engine, and a zoom helper called Glazoom, are inop at this time.
That will at least give you control over "google-analytics.com" from capturing site visit information. I never allow it to run on any site I visit. Even TechRepublic 
2/1/10 08:20 am [edit]: Well this is interesting....I logged in to check the recent posts to this discussion using FireFox 3.5.7 with NoScript. I was greeted with a warning from NoScript referring to a potential cross-site scripting attempt from http://ad.doubleclick.net. Which is another site I never allow via NoScript. Also received a pop up warning from FireFox itself warning about a plugin that was trying to install some sort of media streaming (didn't write down the name
). Additionally, FireFox displayed another warning: "You are about to log in to the site "mads.com.com" with the username "xss", but the website does not require authentication. This may be an attempt to trick you." And then asks if I want to log in, of course "No" was the reply.
Just another win for NoScript and FireFox. This is why I use FireFox as my primary browser with NoScript.
2/1/10 08:20 am [edit]: Well this is interesting....I logged in to check the recent posts to this discussion using FireFox 3.5.7 with NoScript. I was greeted with a warning from NoScript referring to a potential cross-site scripting attempt from http://ad.doubleclick.net. Which is another site I never allow via NoScript. Also received a pop up warning from FireFox itself warning about a plugin that was trying to install some sort of media streaming (didn't write down the name
). Additionally, FireFox displayed another warning: "You are about to log in to the site "mads.com.com" with the username "xss", but the website does not require authentication. This may be an attempt to trick you." And then asks if I want to log in, of course "No" was the reply. Just another win for NoScript and FireFox. This is why I use FireFox as my primary browser with NoScript.
I'm wary of add on components. Is there any definitive opinion on this one?
What about banning (e.g.) google-analytics.com on the IP#?
What about banning (e.g.) google-analytics.com on the IP#?
By Mozilla. Personally, I have not found any thing wrong with it, or seen any odd actions. If you are leery of add-ons, I am not sure what alternatives you have to help secure the Web Browser. Other than using something like SandBoxie.
Well I have a copy of it and saved the Mozilla site link, just in case.
Yes I am leery of add on material, principally because a) I am testing Firefox, and b) I paid especial attention to TechRep comments about the safety of bolt on stuff, in their recent '10 best' articles on the matter.
So, you see, people do pay attention to your caveats.
Yes I am leery of add on material, principally because a) I am testing Firefox, and b) I paid especial attention to TechRep comments about the safety of bolt on stuff, in their recent '10 best' articles on the matter.
So, you see, people do pay attention to your caveats.
For that matter, I think I would trust more an entity like Google than a security expert's proxy server. How will he treat my information going through his server. Will his proxy retain that information and for what purpose, or who can be certain that the information has been deleted. My point is, we will soon need a proxy to hide our searches from GoogleShare.
I found an interesting thread about GoogleSharing where one user hints at the following:
---QUOTE---
So, let's say some other user using this service searches for something illegal (I'm sure you can think of something they might search for, and not only that, but these people will gravitate to such a service because of the supposed anonymity it offers), and let's say that this gets an ID from the service, then when I search this ID is now passed to me (by chance). Does this mean that when they track it back that there is a possibility that somehow I will be implicated in legal problems because of this?
GoogleSharing:
Two people make a search:
me: something not illegal
other: something illegal
The way Google sees it if, by chance, GoogleSharing mixed the identities this way:
me: something illegal
other: something not illegal
OH NO!!!
---END OF QUOTE---
As the thread endet without an answer to that question, I'd be interested in knowing what you think about this problem.
---QUOTE---
So, let's say some other user using this service searches for something illegal (I'm sure you can think of something they might search for, and not only that, but these people will gravitate to such a service because of the supposed anonymity it offers), and let's say that this gets an ID from the service, then when I search this ID is now passed to me (by chance). Does this mean that when they track it back that there is a possibility that somehow I will be implicated in legal problems because of this?
GoogleSharing:
Two people make a search:
me: something not illegal
other: something illegal
The way Google sees it if, by chance, GoogleSharing mixed the identities this way:
me: something illegal
other: something not illegal
OH NO!!!
---END OF QUOTE---
As the thread endet without an answer to that question, I'd be interested in knowing what you think about this problem.
I think this is another escalation of cat and mouse.
Gotta be something fundamentally better, but I'll be damned if I can think of it.
Gotta be something fundamentally better, but I'll be damned if I can think of it.
This sounds like a good idea however as you mentioned you now have to trust yet another party. As santeewelding implied then Google will change something to break GoogleSharing and the chase goes on. I'm not sure what the answer is.
This reminds me of The Prisoner TV show, you can't just leave the Village, you are being monitored and every move has a counter move.
This reminds me of The Prisoner TV show, you can't just leave the Village, you are being monitored and every move has a counter move.
Break this app. It really doesn't do anything different than a normal Google request does.
As for trust, that is the biggy. Moxie mentioned that they do not retain any data. Google will not do that. Google got excited when they said they would randomize IP addresses after 9 months.
As for trust, that is the biggy. Moxie mentioned that they do not retain any data. Google will not do that. Google got excited when they said they would randomize IP addresses after 9 months.
not having tried it yet, later tonight maybe.
If its a proper Open Source Software then others will build upon it and take the anonymity end of it further.
People need to learn that lazy and bad habits have no easy fix. Things that are sold as a convenience and for free end up being neither.
Want to retain privacy on the internet then good luck, as soon as you involve credit transactions it gets nearly impossible even with these kind of services.
If its a proper Open Source Software then others will build upon it and take the anonymity end of it further.
People need to learn that lazy and bad habits have no easy fix. Things that are sold as a convenience and for free end up being neither.
Want to retain privacy on the internet then good luck, as soon as you involve credit transactions it gets nearly impossible even with these kind of services.
...but I have assumed for a long time that most anonymizing services were either run, infiltrated or monitored by security services. After all, for white-hats looking for good places to find black-hats, there can be few better places to start searching. So I reckon if you start using these services, all you are doing is bringing yourself to the notice of government agencies.
I guess if you want to use Moxie's software successfully, you have to go to an internet cafe, pay cash, download his software and mount it on your own offshore server paid for through a numbered Swiss bank account... stuff it, life's too short!
I guess if you want to use Moxie's software successfully, you have to go to an internet cafe, pay cash, download his software and mount it on your own offshore server paid for through a numbered Swiss bank account... stuff it, life's too short!
When I hear "maybe you shouldn't be doing it" I expect to be listening to a Baptist preacher not a goon from Google.
I say f'em. I do what I want and enjoy. I'm not breaking laws. If someone ELSE doesn't think I should be doing what I like, then f'em.
Yes, I know google tends to track stuff, but I don't really care that much. The few online transactions I do are secure. If I find that google has been using my info, I'll happily take them to court and rip them a couple new ones. Until then, they deliver good services.
Yes, I know google tends to track stuff, but I don't really care that much. The few online transactions I do are secure. If I find that google has been using my info, I'll happily take them to court and rip them a couple new ones. Until then, they deliver good services.
Anonymity can mean a lot of different things, and "anonymizing services" can be tailored to a lot of different threats. So it's important to look at the problem GoogleSharing is trying to solve.
Notably, GoogleSharing does not bill itself as an anonymizing service for those trying to hide their traffic from active surveillance by a global adversary. There are other services, such as Tor, which are very well suited for that kind of threat. You can save yourself a lot of trouble with the offshore server by just using Tor instead. =)
GoogleSharing is designed to address the threat of bulk data collection. As Google continues to expand, they continue to collect more information about you, and in some ways the profile they have of you begins to become more complete than what even your closest friends might know.
The problem isn't any single piece of sensitive information, but rather the total picture this kind of surveillance yields. Tor is very useful for the pieces of sensitive information that require strong anonymity, but the performance implications of Tor make using it for all of your day-to-day searches, queries, and browsing difficult. That's where GoogleSharing comes in -- for the day-to-day traffic that adds up to a dangerous larger picture.
If your position is that by just sending all of your queries to Google directly, you will be somehow "lost in the noise" of all their users, I'd argue that this is simply not true. Their entire business is based on making this not true.
Notably, GoogleSharing does not bill itself as an anonymizing service for those trying to hide their traffic from active surveillance by a global adversary. There are other services, such as Tor, which are very well suited for that kind of threat. You can save yourself a lot of trouble with the offshore server by just using Tor instead. =)
GoogleSharing is designed to address the threat of bulk data collection. As Google continues to expand, they continue to collect more information about you, and in some ways the profile they have of you begins to become more complete than what even your closest friends might know.
The problem isn't any single piece of sensitive information, but rather the total picture this kind of surveillance yields. Tor is very useful for the pieces of sensitive information that require strong anonymity, but the performance implications of Tor make using it for all of your day-to-day searches, queries, and browsing difficult. That's where GoogleSharing comes in -- for the day-to-day traffic that adds up to a dangerous larger picture.
If your position is that by just sending all of your queries to Google directly, you will be somehow "lost in the noise" of all their users, I'd argue that this is simply not true. Their entire business is based on making this not true.
You have nailed it on the head. I for one hate that they constantly track you down like dogs tracking herring sent. The other thing which I have, is the scanning of my emails to show adds based on the content. But I guess some will counter that I am am getting the email service for free so they have that right and the fact that the mail is sitting on their servers. But I like the Googlessharing and will give it a whirl later.
FWIW, I have been using Google DNS for the past few days -- since Steve Gibson's "DNS Nameserver Performance Benchmark Utility"* has shown their servers to be among the fastest that return an error message when a URL doesn't translate to an IP address, instead of a page loaded with advertising and "alternative" hyperlinks. Sprint has a couple at the top of the list with regard to the shortest time to return IPs that are in their cache, but not so good on the other benchmarks (and return advertising instead of the "not found" error message).
What Personally Identifiable Information (PII) is in a DNS UDP packet? The IP address that my computer system is using at any given time is dynamic, and I can force it to change just by powering the ADSL "modem" off/on. AFAIK, the only thing that anyone is likely to learn is that the DNS request came from an IP address that is owned by Embarq AKA CenturyLink. Google or anyone else who is "data mining" would have to correlate the DNS data with some record that contains both the IP address and PII, but it could be the wrong PII because someone else might have been using that IP address at any given time, not me.
* http://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
(There is a "Download Now" button under the large picture of the program's "device" UI.)
What Personally Identifiable Information (PII) is in a DNS UDP packet? The IP address that my computer system is using at any given time is dynamic, and I can force it to change just by powering the ADSL "modem" off/on. AFAIK, the only thing that anyone is likely to learn is that the DNS request came from an IP address that is owned by Embarq AKA CenturyLink. Google or anyone else who is "data mining" would have to correlate the DNS data with some record that contains both the IP address and PII, but it could be the wrong PII because someone else might have been using that IP address at any given time, not me.
* http://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
(There is a "Download Now" button under the large picture of the program's "device" UI.)
of your activities, because the cookies can be used to include an identifier. And any site that gets sent that cookie will link the data related to it. Google-Analytics, and a few other similar activities, use identifiers within the cookies to correlate the information from different areas.
You can check this yourself quite easily. Log onto a site that requires ID and password, tick the box that says 'Remember me on this site' - then close the browser, change your IP address, and revisit the browser - Bingo, your straight in without having to be logged in again, simply because the cookie, which is stored on your system has 'remembered' you to the site. Try the same thing, but this time delete the cookie without changing the IP address; and you have to log in again.
This kind of behaviour is even more so with some of the Flash cookies, as they aren't browser cache location specific. So your DNS proxy can be negated, as regards to anonymity of the individual, but not the immediate location.
You can check this yourself quite easily. Log onto a site that requires ID and password, tick the box that says 'Remember me on this site' - then close the browser, change your IP address, and revisit the browser - Bingo, your straight in without having to be logged in again, simply because the cookie, which is stored on your system has 'remembered' you to the site. Try the same thing, but this time delete the cookie without changing the IP address; and you have to log in again.
This kind of behaviour is even more so with some of the Flash cookies, as they aren't browser cache location specific. So your DNS proxy can be negated, as regards to anonymity of the individual, but not the immediate location.
reasonably frequently does make associating an IP address with Personally Identifiable Information (PII) possibly produce an invalid result.
As far as I know, a query to a DNS resolver (a UDP packet) does not contain any PII, and DNS resolvers do not set cookies on anyone's computer! Apparently, though, they can log the IP address from which they receive a query and, presumably, also log the URL, if any, which the DNS server returned to that address.
So Google could collect that data from its public DNS servers, and, perhaps, correlate a logged URL with PII which is associated with the same IP address as the one on the log for the URL. But there is a significant risk that any such correlation is invalid unless the IP address is static.
With regard to cookies, IMHO, that appears to be off-topic. We have discussed behavioral tracking and targeted advertising before, and those activities do pretty much depend upon the use of third-party tracking cookies. That said, for what it is worth, I never enable the "Remember me" option. But, the web site owner does not need my permission to do that.
As far as I know, a query to a DNS resolver (a UDP packet) does not contain any PII, and DNS resolvers do not set cookies on anyone's computer! Apparently, though, they can log the IP address from which they receive a query and, presumably, also log the URL, if any, which the DNS server returned to that address.
So Google could collect that data from its public DNS servers, and, perhaps, correlate a logged URL with PII which is associated with the same IP address as the one on the log for the URL. But there is a significant risk that any such correlation is invalid unless the IP address is static.
With regard to cookies, IMHO, that appears to be off-topic. We have discussed behavioral tracking and targeted advertising before, and those activities do pretty much depend upon the use of third-party tracking cookies. That said, for what it is worth, I never enable the "Remember me" option. But, the web site owner does not need my permission to do that.
the DNS server and UDP are correct. The concern with this whole thread is the tracking of activities by Google when you use their web site. Although Michael has concentrated on using a proxy service (Google Sharing) to upset this information, the facts are that Google, and others, do track a lot of activities across the web. My point in this sub-thread is that the tracking by Google, and most of the others, is rarely done by the IP address, but usually by the placement of a cookie on your system when you hit their web site. It matters not what you do about the IP address after the cookie is on the computer, as the cookie can have a unique ID code in it which will allow Google etc to correlate all information they receive that incorporates that code. Change the IP address, change the DNS server, the cookie still has the code.
Now, as regards to how Google Sharing works, I don't know, I can think of two ways this is done, and the most likely, based on what Michael's said about it, is that they take your query and copy the request data into one they make. That way the cookie Google sends them stays on their system, while they send you the data itself. Thus, when Google correlate the data with that cookie ID, they get a mix of information from a number of the queries processed by Google Sharing, and that will throw out the analysis done by Google.
Another way to disrupt this tracking and analysis is to stop the tracking in its tracks (pun intended) by denying the acceptance of the cookie that does the tracking. The majority of the tracking is done by cookies issued by Google-Analytics, so I've my system set up to kill them as they will show as third party cookies or have one of the GA URLs in the cookie address. Denying communication with those tracking sites ends the tracking.
When I actually visit Google to do a search, they can easily track my activities on their web site without having to send me a third party cookie, so I don't worry about that too much, but neither do I do all my research via Google, or from this one computer, and I clear all Google cookies when I finish with the search.
I also clear Flash cookies as soon as I finish with the site that uses Flash that I use. Most Flash is block, only selected sites are allowed through by me - I use an add-on called Flash Blocker to do that.
..............
In summary,
there are two lots of tracking going on, that done as a second party process when you access the Google search engine, which Google Sharing disrupts, and that done as third party cookies on other sites, which the information I've mentioned disrupts. in my mind, you need to disrupt BOTH tracking systems to do a good job.
I hope this helps you to understand, better, where i'm coming from and what I'm talking about.
Now, as regards to how Google Sharing works, I don't know, I can think of two ways this is done, and the most likely, based on what Michael's said about it, is that they take your query and copy the request data into one they make. That way the cookie Google sends them stays on their system, while they send you the data itself. Thus, when Google correlate the data with that cookie ID, they get a mix of information from a number of the queries processed by Google Sharing, and that will throw out the analysis done by Google.
Another way to disrupt this tracking and analysis is to stop the tracking in its tracks (pun intended) by denying the acceptance of the cookie that does the tracking. The majority of the tracking is done by cookies issued by Google-Analytics, so I've my system set up to kill them as they will show as third party cookies or have one of the GA URLs in the cookie address. Denying communication with those tracking sites ends the tracking.
When I actually visit Google to do a search, they can easily track my activities on their web site without having to send me a third party cookie, so I don't worry about that too much, but neither do I do all my research via Google, or from this one computer, and I clear all Google cookies when I finish with the search.
I also clear Flash cookies as soon as I finish with the site that uses Flash that I use. Most Flash is block, only selected sites are allowed through by me - I use an add-on called Flash Blocker to do that.
..............
In summary,
there are two lots of tracking going on, that done as a second party process when you access the Google search engine, which Google Sharing disrupts, and that done as third party cookies on other sites, which the information I've mentioned disrupts. in my mind, you need to disrupt BOTH tracking systems to do a good job.
I hope this helps you to understand, better, where i'm coming from and what I'm talking about.
FYI, I take the following measures to control cookies:
(1) Firefox NoScript denies Google-Analytics and Quantserve (among others) the ability to execute JavaScript while I am visiting a web site, and that seems to prevent them from setting cookies on my computer, as well as doing other things. However, I have encountered one web site where I could not access very much of the content until I enabled Google-Analytics (!). We should acknowledge that Google-Analytics data is shared with the website owner as well as Google.
(2) With Firefox Permit Cookies, I can easily record my choice (Allow, Session, Block, Remove) in the Exceptions list on the Firefox Tools > Options > Privacy "Allow cookies from sites" (enabled) line. This pertains to the web site that I am currently visiting, but I have manually added URLs for Google-Analytics, DoubleClick, et. al. to that list, too.
(3) The Firefox "Accept third-party cookies" option is enabled, with "Keep until: I close Firefox".
Since I have the Startup option "Show my windows and tabs from last time" enabled, Firefox keeps a record of all those which are open when I close Firefox. The next time Firefox launches, each window and tab is restored with whatever content that the web site is currently displaying on the page with the corresponding URL. Loading that page also allows that web site to set cookies on my computer, unless I have blocked them from doing so on the Exceptions list. More often than blocking a web site, I specify "allow for session", so the cookie will be removed if I close the tab/window. (This Startup option might have a bug, because on one occasion a window that I recalled as being left open was not restored.)
If a browser does not allow cookies, or does not allow third-party cookies, then the vast majority of web sites that I routinely visit will not display anything except a message that the user must "enable cookies" (including third-party cookies) in order to use their web site. So cookies can be managed, but cannot be wholly avoided unless you really don't want to do much via the World Wide Web.
If you want to prevent Google from setting a cookie on your computer, or recording your IP address, and stop anyone from "snooping" into your traffic, I suggest that you consider Scroogle:
Scroogle Home Page
http://www.scroogle.org/
Scroogle Scraper (search interface)
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm
How using SSL protects your privacy
https://ssl.scroogle.org/sslnote.html
The Scroogle link that has been added to my Firefox search-engine list is:
Scroogle SSL en (for English)
https://ssl.scroogle.org/
The primary downside that I have found to using Scroogle is that it does not have the Advanced Search interface that is available on Google. However, it is possible to compose the search string manually to return the same results. The Google interface just makes it easier to compose the search string. With Scroogle, there is also no "Google cache" option. Scroogle also eliminates any Google advertising from the search results -- sometimes the advertising is actually more useful than the results!
I don't know whether any similar characteristics exist with using the Google Sharing extension for Firefox, since I have not installed it (yet).
(1) Firefox NoScript denies Google-Analytics and Quantserve (among others) the ability to execute JavaScript while I am visiting a web site, and that seems to prevent them from setting cookies on my computer, as well as doing other things. However, I have encountered one web site where I could not access very much of the content until I enabled Google-Analytics (!). We should acknowledge that Google-Analytics data is shared with the website owner as well as Google.
(2) With Firefox Permit Cookies, I can easily record my choice (Allow, Session, Block, Remove) in the Exceptions list on the Firefox Tools > Options > Privacy "Allow cookies from sites" (enabled) line. This pertains to the web site that I am currently visiting, but I have manually added URLs for Google-Analytics, DoubleClick, et. al. to that list, too.
(3) The Firefox "Accept third-party cookies" option is enabled, with "Keep until: I close Firefox".
Since I have the Startup option "Show my windows and tabs from last time" enabled, Firefox keeps a record of all those which are open when I close Firefox. The next time Firefox launches, each window and tab is restored with whatever content that the web site is currently displaying on the page with the corresponding URL. Loading that page also allows that web site to set cookies on my computer, unless I have blocked them from doing so on the Exceptions list. More often than blocking a web site, I specify "allow for session", so the cookie will be removed if I close the tab/window. (This Startup option might have a bug, because on one occasion a window that I recalled as being left open was not restored.)
If a browser does not allow cookies, or does not allow third-party cookies, then the vast majority of web sites that I routinely visit will not display anything except a message that the user must "enable cookies" (including third-party cookies) in order to use their web site. So cookies can be managed, but cannot be wholly avoided unless you really don't want to do much via the World Wide Web.
If you want to prevent Google from setting a cookie on your computer, or recording your IP address, and stop anyone from "snooping" into your traffic, I suggest that you consider Scroogle:
Scroogle Home Page
http://www.scroogle.org/
Scroogle Scraper (search interface)
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm
How using SSL protects your privacy
https://ssl.scroogle.org/sslnote.html
The Scroogle link that has been added to my Firefox search-engine list is:
Scroogle SSL en (for English)
https://ssl.scroogle.org/
The primary downside that I have found to using Scroogle is that it does not have the Advanced Search interface that is available on Google. However, it is possible to compose the search string manually to return the same results. The Google interface just makes it easier to compose the search string. With Scroogle, there is also no "Google cache" option. Scroogle also eliminates any Google advertising from the search results -- sometimes the advertising is actually more useful than the results!
I don't know whether any similar characteristics exist with using the Google Sharing extension for Firefox, since I have not installed it (yet).
cookies enabled but third party cookies refused as my default, and I get normal access to the web sites i visit, except those that are blocked by Flash Blocker until I decide to skip the site or enable the Flash - this only affects sites where some brain dead turd has designed the whole site in and on Flash, so you get nothing if you block Flash.
I did some tests a few months back and found that disabling third party cookies can actually speed up the download of some sites. This is because the site tries to hit you with a third party cookie from GA and then waits for GA to send it some ads to incorporate in what they send you. Without the interaction with GA, the page loads faster as you don't get told to wait for the ads.
No script can be useful, but once you've allowed a site to run scripts, then you get the cookies, the third party cookies, and the flash cookies as they're coming from the site you just approved. Refusing the third party cookies and the other actions I take, stop those from working on the no-script approved sites too.
I did some tests a few months back and found that disabling third party cookies can actually speed up the download of some sites. This is because the site tries to hit you with a third party cookie from GA and then waits for GA to send it some ads to incorporate in what they send you. Without the interaction with GA, the page loads faster as you don't get told to wait for the ads.
No script can be useful, but once you've allowed a site to run scripts, then you get the cookies, the third party cookies, and the flash cookies as they're coming from the site you just approved. Refusing the third party cookies and the other actions I take, stop those from working on the no-script approved sites too.
blocks a lot of the cookies that misbehave, and MBAM seems to block bad ip queries that can keep pages from loading; I rarely blow past that. I figure it isn't worth my security to do so.
I've never tried Superanti-spyware with real time protection, so I couldn't attest to it, but I feel with good anti-malware solutions in depth, I can let the rest have my cookies.
I've never tried Superanti-spyware with real time protection, so I couldn't attest to it, but I feel with good anti-malware solutions in depth, I can let the rest have my cookies.
Does that change your opinion on how Google is run? They will lose controlling interest in company:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9148258/Google_co_founders_to_unload_stock_in_company
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9148258/Google_co_founders_to_unload_stock_in_company
Googles "Do No Evil" may have lasted until the IPO. Of course when you sell your soul, um, er, shares, evil can seep in a little further.
If you have something that you don?t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn?t be doing it in the first place.? I Totally agree !!!!!!
capturing this information, not to tell the cops you visited a Victoria's Secret site, but to get money by targeting ads at you. I see enough bloody ads around without getting more on my computer, let alone the extra bandwidth used for them to collect the data to begin with.
Much better to just block the Google services that do this garbage.
Much better to just block the Google services that do this garbage.
Their primary motive isn't to facilitate government surveillance. But unfortunately their information gathering techniques also mean that the cops have a convenient place to come knocking -- which they do.
Do you have then? Not search for anything. Do not visit any Web sites? Google has a longer reach than you may realize. I understand their need to do research, but why not anonymize the data. What is the need to keep user information.
One way to screw up Google's ads in gmail is to put 'bad language' into email, change the text attribute to 'white' and warn the recipients. Words like 'f_ck' work a treat. There are other search engines of course, and there are such things as reliable proxies, though they will cost. I also feed a lot of IP numbers into my firewall and antivirus software. Putting them into the nameserver results in unwanted requests to display https and non https material on the same page.
To make absolutely certain the job is done I use a variety of Ad blockers, depending on the browser in use. Just in case some toad gets by.
Sometimes for kicks I turn it off to see what I have been missing. Lots, and it turns up in my cache.
To make absolutely certain the job is done I use a variety of Ad blockers, depending on the browser in use. Just in case some toad gets by.
Sometimes for kicks I turn it off to see what I have been missing. Lots, and it turns up in my cache.
So I guess you do not subscribe to concept of privacy. That is very interesting! This is the first time I have actually come across someone who couldn't care less if people were reading your emails, or listening to your conversions, or looking into your bed/bathroom, or peeping over your shoulder when you swipe your card and begin to enter your pin or password. Because you statement implies that whatever you do, then you would want some else to know about it. Hmmmn. Quite a concept.
Having a nip of your favorite alcoholic beverage? Or worshipping in your choice of religious service (or not)? Who/What dictates what "you" should or should not do? Law? Popular opinion? These vary from one day to the next as well as from one end to the other in terms of common sense and insanity. Must be nice to live such a regimented, ordinary and perfect life such that one might be able to honestly express no problem with this statement. As for me, as long as Googles interest remains in "What's in your wallet?" I can deal with it.
1. I use Fire Fox with AdBlock Plus - I then enter a personal rule that always blocks Google-Analytics and a few other Google sites involved in the tracking, like Googleleadservices.
2. I set Third Party cookies to be refused and again set Ga to be blocked by FF itself.
3. Also set Adblock Plus to block every website that comes up with an ad at any stage. That way, even if Google get past my killing GA, the ad doesn't come up and advertiser doesn't get the confirmation of the receipt of the ad and Google don't get paid.
These two simple processes kill of most of this stuff.
2. I set Third Party cookies to be refused and again set Ga to be blocked by FF itself.
3. Also set Adblock Plus to block every website that comes up with an ad at any stage. That way, even if Google get past my killing GA, the ad doesn't come up and advertiser doesn't get the confirmation of the receipt of the ad and Google don't get paid.
These two simple processes kill of most of this stuff.
entries, which includes doubleclick, but there is a new doublclick variant I've added - I simply listed the two main Google ones used since this is about Google. last time I listed the personal rules I have, someone at TR made changes to the site and I started getting the horrid ads again - that was in the thread for one of your other blogs on this sort of thing, about seven months back, I think. Took me a while to get the new rules right to keep TR working nice - I really don't need to know about tech specials in the US.
Yes, the point is to keep feeding the data into various packages. Ultimately life is very quiet after these efforts. As I said in another response just now, turning all of the restrictions off can be very amusing. I didn't know what I was missing.
I have added google.com/analytics and googlerealservices.com to my adblockplus settings and in FF. What other sites should I block in order to maintain some sort of privacy? I too am of the thinking that if one addon handles the problem, why plug up my computer with more addons to do basically the same thing.
as well as filter rules in Adblock Plus, I also enter these as sites to block all cookies from in the FF - Preferences - Privacy - Exceptions (with a block/disallow setting):
googlesyndication.com/*
google-analytics.com/*
|http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js
|http://www.google-analytics.com/*
the line before the http is the 'Pipe' key, that's the one on the far right just above the 'Enter' key - you hold down 'Shift' as you hit it. For some reason you need both the entries with the pipe and without the http to get them all, otherwise some sneak through.
Also, go to the very bottom of the rule list in Adblock Plus, the last couple of sub lists are white lists that are allowed through, unless you remove the tick beside them, thus removing them from the white list - just make sure it IS the white list you're working on (yes, they do have the first white list named as **easylist_whitelist.txt**) and check it after each update, as new ones do get added.
googlesyndication.com/*
google-analytics.com/*
|http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js
|http://www.google-analytics.com/*
the line before the http is the 'Pipe' key, that's the one on the far right just above the 'Enter' key - you hold down 'Shift' as you hit it. For some reason you need both the entries with the pipe and without the http to get them all, otherwise some sneak through.
Also, go to the very bottom of the rule list in Adblock Plus, the last couple of sub lists are white lists that are allowed through, unless you remove the tick beside them, thus removing them from the white list - just make sure it IS the white list you're working on (yes, they do have the first white list named as **easylist_whitelist.txt**) and check it after each update, as new ones do get added.
By using the hosts file maintained at http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm. Simply being known as an advertising site does not necessarily qualify an entity to be added to this databse. The site has a full explanation of the hows and whys of the files listing. Besides the ones currently on the list, I find myself adding my own to it regularly.
I use openDNS for a similar blocking service and there is NO WAY I would ever use Google's new DNS service. Nope - not going there.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
