I Visited 47 Sites. Hundreds of Trackers Followed Me

I Visited 47 Sites. Hundreds of Trackers Followed Me
August 23, 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/23/opinion/data-internet-privacy-tracking.html

 

Not everything. For example image from other domain means connection to another domain even if JS is disabled. This connection may sent referer and cookie, along with IP address.
Disabling JS entirely is also not an option for most people, because this would break too many websites. That's why I think NoScript is not enough for privacy. I have one more addon for privacy: it might be Ghostery or some AdBlocker.

 

Actually, NS isn't really a good solution since it will break most sites, and most people are not interested in having to keep fine tuning things. I do believe that tools like uBlock and Ghostery will block most of the tracking, but they can't stop everything. But it's a nice article to wake people up.

 

There is more.
With the same website there is a greater risk to privacy if it is intended for a non-European public.
Look at the difference between Decathlon.com and Decathlon.it

 

Agreed. I tried NS once and uninstalled it after a couple of hours. If you do extensive research on the Internet and go to many different sites, it is really annoying to see all the broken websites.

This is also my opinion. I use AdGuard which blocks lots of tracking stuff. Sure, it doesn't block each and every tracker, but that's good enough for me.

 

I also prefer blacklist solution over whitelist when it comes to internet. Blocking scripts would improve privacy and security. But allowing scripts on some sites, that you try to visit and don't work, without examining what those scripts are actually doing doesn't help much either.

 

I find the best privacy tool to be a good VPN provider.

 

I just use uBO. I tried Tunnel Bear blocker with it, but it seems to be blocking the same things.

 

This was also the rationale behind Manifest V3. Disable or diminish the capabilities of adblockers such as uBO and advertising companies have more ability to track an individual.

 

I agree that would be best to examine these scripts, but I don't agree that blocking by NoScript of most scripts does not help, at least for me. Sites I visit usually are not some new, shady parts of Web, but known domains. They may not be most popular ones that average person visit, but they have some history. That's why I can assume scripts from these domains are not that risky (but they may invade my privacy to some degree) as from random domain.
Much bigger risk is associated with 3rd party scripts, that may serve scripts from other 3rd parties.

As I said - allowed script may invade my privacy, because it is a norm today, so I know I need another layer of protection - some AdBlocker or Ghostery.

 

A combination of AdGuard and Ghostery extensions in Firefox pretty much whacks the garbage. One might assume the same for other browsers.

Below are screenies of connectivity for a globally popular news aggregator with and without the two extensions. Metrics are typical of all monetized/commercial sites: hundreds vs a dozen or so. Generally, all site mission content displays well and benign script features remain functional.

Ghostery options and settings all at max. AdGuard filters used (updates every six hours):
AdGuard Base
AdGuard Tracking Protection
AdGuard Social Media
Fanboy's Social Blocking
AdGuard Annoyances

I found that to put the screws to all the social media crap, both AdGuard and Fanboy filters are needed.

 

I use Trace. It's free but an upgrade to premium offers more options/ configuration.



For Chrome:

h**ps://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/trace-online-tracking-pro/njkmjblmcfiobddjgebnoeldkjcplfjb?hl=en-GB

For Firefox:

h**ps://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/absolutedouble-trace/

 

No one extension or solution will act as a curative. I use µBO medium mode with other extensions like Privacy Badger, etc. Absolute privacy is just not achievable, so the response needs to focus on reducing tracking through personally acceptable means. Some want a set and forget solution, others are willing to do more. What is the footprint I wish to leave? Or do I even care?

 

Exactly, I don't understand why people who are using NS don't get this. You can achieve the same level of security and privacy with uBlock, no need for NS.

 

I use both and I have no problem.
But I understand that it is not easy to use NS correctly.

 

What's to get is that people don't need all the hassle involved with NS, uBlock is good enough. And it does have the same level of control and even a better interface.

 

No, but 99% of the rest of the world will find it a hassle. Fact of the matter is that it will break lots of sites, while uBlock does not. The point is that it makes more sense to block third party trackers, instead of to block almost ALL scripts.

 

BTW, am I only one who've been feeling some of exception rules in AdGuard's filters are too lax? This reminded me of detriment of adding more filters: an exception rule overrides blocking rule (unless, in case of uBO, $important option is used) thus potentially causes less blocking.
Just as an example: compare "@@||2mdn.net/instream/" rule in AG Base filter with that in uBO's Unbreak filter. The former pretty much negates the blocking rule.