Ghostery for Chrome now blocks bugs!

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by Daveski17, Jul 28, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
  2. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,917
    Location:
    U.S.A.
  3. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    I think I'll be passing now. It used to be a nice extension, good thing NoScript can do the same job basically.
     
  4. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Not in Chrome though.
     
  5. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Nope, which is why, with all the security features Chrome has, I'm staying away for now. Ghostery seems like it's doing the exact opposite of its original goal. Maybe I'm reading too much into it though.
     
  6. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    I don't know if people are getting a bit paranoid about Ghostery. Or maybe I'm just naive. It spotted a Microsoft tracker in my Yahoo! Mail.
     
  7. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543

    Well, admittedly the link doesn't contain anything that would signal the end of the world, it just seems, to me at least, like it's a step back instead of forward. I don't know, maybe it really isn't anything to worry over. As far as Microsoft and Yahoo, wasn't a search deal made a while back between them that saw MS either owning certain parts of Yahoo or controlling it in some way? That would explain why the tracker was there probably.
     
  8. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Dave, have you been using this awhile? If you've posted your views on this do give us a link.

    And who is Davetotskio_Oo_Oo_O
     
  9. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,917
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    And that's the reason why I posted those links, dw426. The old Ghostery never had an opt-in feature, and if someone is looking at installing it, they might not understand why the need to opt-in.

    Whether this new feature is good or bad, I can't say, however, like you, I moved on to NoScript, with Forbid "Web Bugs" enabled.
     
  10. BoerenkoolMetWorst

    BoerenkoolMetWorst Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Posts:
    3,764
    Location:
    Outer space
    I don't know what you mean with the old Ghostery, but I'm a 100% sure that at least the last few versions before it was bought already had Ghostrank as opt-in. You can probably still download the old version at AMO, so if you want you can see for yourself.

    Some people were also paranoid about the privacy policy from BetterAdvertising and started to tell everyone not to use it which created a negative buzz for Ghostery, but they failed to see the privacy policy was only for the website, not the addon. Data collection for the addon is opt-in only. Also with NoScript web bugs are only blocked on untrusted domains, not on trusted. Some web bugs are not on separate domains but on the main domain. So unless you have every domain as untrusted with NoScript, Ghostery is still a nice addition. Plus, it easily shows you which sites use web bugs ;)
     
  11. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    I just think that people are getting a little paranoid now that Ghostery is being released by someone else. I haven't been using it long anyway.

    It's nice to know that Ghostery works!
     
  12. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    What he said ... :thumb:
     
  13. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    I'm quite new to Ghostery. As for Davetotski, he must be a long lost relative ... :D
     
  14. Konata Izumi

    Konata Izumi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2008
    Posts:
    1,544
    1.) Do we really need to use these 3rd-party addons/extensions?
    2.) Can we not configure our browsers or our OSses to block these bugs? HOW?

    I don't want extensions cause I don't want to bother reading their privacy policies. :<
     
  15. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    I've never heard of a way to block them in a browser, for sure not an OS. I'd be very interested to know if there were such a way.

    @Dave, Boeren: Point taken, perhaps I didn't look as well as I should have. I certainly didn't think about NoScript only blocking web bugs on untrusted domains, thanks for bringing that to light. I may give it a go, just to at least say I gave them a chance.
     
  16. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    @dw426 ~ Ghostery works well in Firefox now & is more functional than the Chrome extension (as you probably know), plus I think it compliments NoScript well. Ever since the 2.2 release it has been responsive & fast. Before that I found that it could be a tad sluggish with the 'ghost feed' count display (next to the task bar icon) in responding to new pages opened. I believe quite a few people suffered from this problem. In fact, now, speed wise, it seems like shite off a shovel as we say in my country.

    *Very, very quick. ;)
     
  17. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Has this thing changed? It supposedly no longer actually blocks these bugs, merely shows what bugs are on the pages?

    Edit: Nevermind, my fault, lol.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2010
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.