upvote
"Ad blockers" nowadays do much more. From the horse’s mouth, which describes itself as a “wide-spectrum content blocker” [1]:

“uBlock Origin (uBO) is a CPU and memory-efficient wide-spectrum content blocker for Chromium and Firefox. It blocks ads, trackers, coin miners, popups, annoying anti-blockers, malware sites, etc., by default using EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Peter Lowe's Blocklist, Online Malicious URL Blocklist, and uBO filter lists. There are many other lists available to block even more [...]

Ads, "unintrusive" or not, are just the visible portion of the privacy-invading means entering your browser when you visit most sites. uBO's primary goal is to help users neutralize these privacy-invading methods in a way that welcomes those users who do not wish to use more technical means.”

[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock?tab=readme-ov-file#ublock-...

reply
I'd like to install uBlock Origin, when I try, Chrome warns it needs the permission to, "Read and change all your data on all websites". That seems excessive, to give that much power to one extension. I currently use no extensions to keep my security posture high.
reply
> "Read and change all your data on all websites"

What a silly complaint. How is an ad blocker supposed to work if it can't read and change the data on a website?

You might as well complain that your Camera app wants access to your camera.

> I currently use no extensions to keep my security posture high.

Ironically, skipping uBlock Origin because of the security concern is lessening your security posture. Are you familiar with the term "malvertising"?

reply
I never get the fear behind extensions, at least not to the level where you wouldn't use an open-source extension that's extremely well vetted. And even if that isn't good enough for you, choosing to browse the web without using a content blocker is a far, far greater security risk.
reply
Appreciate the clarification, I would clarify to say the origin story of Ad blockers are ads, and the underlying behaviours may not capture everything that fingerprinting may do where people don't advertise.

Ublock is great, but I am finding fingerprinting that gets past it and that's what I'm referring to.

reply
Disable JS and you've eliminated the vast majority of fingerprinting (besides "blocks JS")
reply
alternatively, css can script quite a bit... :)
reply
No joke, CSS has gotten out of hand!
reply
Depends on what lists you use. If you use uBlock Origin, and enable most of the lists, it'll target both.
reply
I use uBlock Origin with basically every filter list enabled on Brave with their default blocker enabled. I just confirmed that this does not prevent the script from loading and scanning extensions. The browser tools network tab on LinkedIn is absolutely frightening.
reply
NoScript will prevent that script from loading and scanning extensions. JS is required for almost all fingerprinting and malware spread via websites. Keeping it disabled, at least by default, is the best thing you can do to protect yourself.
reply
According to the EFF fingerprinting website, Firefox + uBlock Origin didn't really make my browser particularly unique.

But turning on privacy.resistfingerprinting in about:config (or was it fingerprintingProtection?) would break things randomly (like 3D maps on google for me. maybe it's related to canvas API stuff?) and made it hard to remember why things weren't working.

Not really sure how to strike a balance of broad convenience vs effectiveness these days. Every additional hoop is more attrition.

reply
> Every time you open LinkedIn in a Chrome-based browser

I thought uBlock Origin was now dead in Chrome?

I remember a few hacks to keep it going but have now migrated to Firefox (or sometimes Edge…) to keep using it.

reply
Full uBlock Origin is dead in Chrome, yes, but https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home is the next best thing if you cannot leave Chrome
reply
or Vivaldi is chrome based, and it supports full uBlock Origin. If you don't need CHROME chrome, that's even better imo
reply
Surprisingly full uBO still works on Chrome 146 if launched with the argument

    --disable-features=ExtensionManifestV2Unsupported
reply
Go try it with fingerprint.com. Even post-sanitization, pi-hole, you name it, it will be surprising.
reply
fingerprint.com seems to be some fingerprinting vendor, they don't even offer a demo without logging in. https://coveryourtracks.eff.org is EFFs demo site is non-profit and doesn't require login
reply
I have a lot of browser extensions running and am using Brave as my browser. I have their built in adblocker enabled as well as some of their privacy features turned on in the settings. I am also using a self hosted adblock instance for my DNS servers. I actually appear as random and not unique which is really nice to see. I know Brave does intentionally lean on some of the privacy side of things and it also has options to specifically prevent sites from fingerprinting by blocking things like seeing language preferences. I have to assume it is also doing some things in the backend to try and prevent other fingerprinting methods.
reply
This is the Fingerprint demo page (the page itself is a demo): https://fingerprint.com/demo There's also https://demo.fingerprint.com for use case specific demos and more detail on the API response.
reply
coveryoutracks always tells me I'm unique

Which is concerning. Until you realise I do the same thing a few days later and I'm still unique.

reply
It tells you that you have a unique fingerprint.

It is not telling you that the test site has never seen you before, because the eff isn't storing your fingerprint for later analysis and tracking

It could actually tell you about which real tracking vendors are showing you as "Seen and tracked" so it's pretty annoying they don't do that.

If that site shows you as having a unique fingerprint, I guarantee you are being tracked across the web. I've seen the actual systems in usage, not the sales pitch. I've seen how effective these tools are, and I haven't even gotten a look at what Google or Facebook have internally. Even no name vendors that don't own the internet can easily track you across any site that integrates with them.

The fingerprint is just a set of signals that tracking providers are using to follow you across the internet. It's per machine for the most part, but if you have ever purchased something on the internet, some of the providers involved will have information like your name.

Here is what Google asks ecommerce platforms to send them as part of a Fraud Prevention integration using Recaptcha:

https://docs.cloud.google.com/recaptcha/docs/reference/rest/...

reply
It must store the fingerprints to determine if I'm unique, otherwise everyone would be unique.

If it doesn't store the fingerprints then how does it tell the difference between

5 identical looking browsers connecting from 5 different IPs

1 browser connecting 5 times from 5 different IPs

reply
deleted
reply