Ghostery is Malware ?

What's your opinion ?

Other nice topics on the www too

 

I use Ghostery.

Albine + Disconect come off both in-genuine to me. Albine has a weaker list and their new GUI is retarded, Disconnect is good in theory but has again GUI issues sometimes and many times let's things through while saying its safe. I use Ghostery because to me it has the most dedicated and large block list. It has GhostRank which you can Opt-Into which is how they make money from anonymously submitting user tracker data "Anonymously" to them. I only accept this because its Opt-In so your can't really blame them or judge them poorly as its fully optional and they never lie about what it is.

I use Ghostery over the others for this reason.

 

I can not help myself, but if someone is desperately screaming his opinion with a huge font, it does not look very trustworthy, it is sure hard to read "the facts" then.

 

If you want to see for yourself what's being let through, click Firefox->Web Developer->Network, then try some sites.

 

Ghostery isn't malware, but it's definitely shady:

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1809141

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=333187

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=351078

 

I wonder if some of you actualy read ALL the info contained in my link ?

**********

@ MrBrian

Re - click Firefox->Web Developer->Network

Click where exactly ? Maybe that feature isn't available on my FF v3.6.14 ?

 

Sorry, only available in Firefox 20-something and later. Maybe Fiddler would work for you though.

 

It is best not to use corporation or corporation backened addons to block ads and tracking. Use addons that have no relation with companies.

 

I did a search for the files and looked in the folders mentioned, doesn't look like I have them. Is that possible? I do use Ghostery.

 

On the other hand, corporations generally have the funds and the time to keep an addon going and have the ability to provide even stronger functionality. Who the corporation is and who they work with makes much more of a difference.

 

I think who the corporation is doesn't make any difference. Their motive is to make profit. On the other hand, an individual who developes addon probably have in mind the privacy, not to make profit. If those individuals try to make profit of them by accepting ads etc... you can use its fork.

 

{SNIP - Unnecessary comment removed ~ TAS}. I've explained this several times to the poster, but hes not interested in understanding. Basically, all conclusions he arrives to are wrong.

As far as being shady, Ghostery is as transparent as we can make it, if you have suggestions for us, let us know. More info is here: http://purplebox.ghostery.com/?p=1016023438

Additionally, we run a monthly comparison on how effective addons are, here it is: http://www.areweprivateyet.com/

Note: I'm dev of Ghostery.

 

{SNIP - Removed quoted Unnecessary Remark and the follow up Remark.}

Please keep the thread civil. _ TAS


http://www.democraticmedia.org/evid...stry-group-shows-inability-understand-privacy

 

I use Ghostery and for now I like it. GhostRank doesn't bother me, as one has to opt in to send that (presumably anonymous) data to company. I also don't believe that Ghostery intentionally doesn't block all tracking as claimed by writer.

Regards, hqsec

 

I prefer fact over opinion. Search my earlier wilders post regarding the ghostery addon ~~ I've related facts based on having performed an audit of its code, line-by-line.

Sadly, too often "people fear what they do not understand" (myself included).
ff addons are javascript. ANYONE can examine the code.
When I examined the code and posted my report, replies along the lines of "I don't hardly care. I still don't trust 'em" followed.
sigh.

Although I'm no longer using Ghostery & do not care to "bother" re-re-auditing its code
(having already done so three time prior)
the "observations" posted to the wordpress blog regarding "what's going on in the (v2.9.6) code"
seem to indicate misunderstanding on the part of the blogger.

rhetorically: Which part of "surrogate scripts" does the blogger not understand?

The whitelisted gstatic.com entry, although I personally consider it to be undesirable...
...OMG the support nightmare from "breaking sites" if gstatic were not, by default, whitelisted.

Separate from the behavior of the addon, I do believe the blogger's claims about finding his/her critical feedback squelched / removed. I've witnessed the disappearance of several poignant, informative, technically-correct (but critical) "user reviews" posted to addons.mozilla.com against various addons.

 

http://www.adexchanger.com/the-state-of/evidon-2/

 

I tried Ghostery but it really slowed down my browsing...

 

How interesting, thanks!

 

I downloaded the latest (v5.1.0) Ghostery .xpi file. I renamed the extension to .zip. Then I unzipped the .zip file.

Claim:

Reality:
File compatibility.json is 1623 bytes, about 40% of which is a legal notice. I tested the main page of one of the sites listed there with Firefox's Network Monitor. Ghostery blocked all requests to other domains, and also blocked the files within that site's domain that Ghostery's user interface claimed to.

---------

@fixanoid
If I have set Ghostery to globally block a given tracker, and also didn't allow that tracker on a given website, and didn't whitelist the given website, are there any conditions under which Ghostery intentionally either
a) won't block the given tracker on the given website, with the user interface toolbar button not listing the given tracker as being blocked
b) won't block the given tracker on the given website, with the user interface toolbar button listing the given tracker as being blocked

---------

@fixanoid
By the way, I am unable to use v5.1.0 because its icon disappears from the toolbar often. I reverted back to v5.0.6, which doesn't have that issue.

 

Claim:

Reality:
I didn't find that file, but maybe I didn't look closely enough.

I don't see "Gstatic" listed as a tracker in Ghostery.

Gstatic.com: Is this Google tracking?

If fixanoid's spreadsheet is correct, then the number of HTTP requests allowed to gstatic.com in Ghostery's privacy extensions test of ~1,000 popular websites falls into one of these three "buckets":
1. Near the baseline of 179. Most extensions are in this bucket. I interpret that as meaning the given extension doesn't block HTTP requests to gstatic.com, or blocks just a few.
2. 0. One extension is in this bucket. I interpret that as meaning the given extension always blocks HTTP requests to gstatic.com.
3. 15 to 18. A few extensions, including Ghostery, are in this bucket. I interpet that to mean that these extensions block HTTP requests to gstatic.com, except for when doing so breaks a website.

 

Just my 2 cents here:

I use Ghostery on both Chrome and FF. I simply like it a lot. I didn't opt-in Ghost Rank. C'mon, it's 2014 already, tracking/data-mining/profiling technologies are everywhere, smartphones, tablets, browsers, credit cards, you name it. I guess it's time to start being creative and figure out new ways of counter-tracking instead of just bashing and critizicing Ghostery (or any other 'corporate-funded' privacy app/extension). The TOR Project is a good start for example, but that's just too much anonimity for my taste.

 

Hi MrBrian, thanks for asking.

We do (a) intentionally only if you hit the tracker directly, what it means is this: you specifically went to google-analytics.com (as in put it in URL bar), then Ghostery will think that this is an action triggered by user and allow the user to go directly to the site even tho it knows its a tracker site.

(b) shouldn't happen at all.

This is a bug. Which Firefox version are you using?

 

Thanks for your response .

In the spreadsheet you posted, some HTTP requests seem to be selectively blocked. For example, doubleclick.net has 17 (vs. a baseline of 769 for no extension). Can you give some insight on why the number of requests to doubleclick.net isn't 0, for example?