Avoiding Tracking - Now with Data

[mikeb]

Firefox has those antiphishing settings.

I am a jolly soul.... I worry about that which is under my nose, or feet, or in my underwear.

If you are creating a custom browser would be nice to throw in some profile optimisations...even with recent firefox it can be trimmed down...cache sizes, vacuum databases, and others.... so a bonus bunny of your package would be to keep it lighter and sweeter for the save file and with less crud coming through off the net.....might reduce those 'my 1GB save file is nearly full' posts.

I see no harm in throwing in things like flashbock and such ...they are small, useful and can always be removed if desired... a useragent spoof is useful too. ..And why not a tiny you tube downloader just to p**s off google ...actually come to think of it that is my base 3 addons along with space saving. I actually use the isp's router to block domains... including ad sites.

mike

[playdayz]

even with recent firefox it can be trimmed down...cache sizes

Yes, I was able to limit cache sizes with command line switches in packages I prepared of Chrome for Lucid--a good idea for Puppy in general I think.

Firefox has those antiphishing settings.

The antiphising and malware options in Firefox are Tools -> Options -> Security.

[Barkin]

Also, greengeek and I, and others I see, have the same goals (see his message above for details). http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 903#745903

1) Speed of browsing
2) Non-collection of malware
3) Avoidance of tracking

2&3 can be competing interests : the in-browser anti-phising anti-malware services lower the odds you’ll accidentally visit a lookalike site and get scammed or have malware added, however those in-browser services communicate with Google which would allow your browsing to be tracked by Google.

There are services like WOT which warn you about dodgy website before you click on them,
but they too would be able to track the websites you view, ( WOT is the lesser of two evils IMO ).

Question: Barkin and mikeb, Does Firefox have those phisihing and malware options as in Seamonkey--they are also able to be turned off in Google Chrome ....

Google Chrome, and anyone who uses it is owned by Google. If you want to avoid being tracked by Google don’t use it …

User tracking

Chrome sends details about its users to Google through both optional and non-optional user tracking mechanisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome#User_tracking

[greengeek]

Tracking treats people as objects to be marketed to, and I regard treating people as objects
to be ethically wrong..

I totally agree. And I feel it is a form of theft when a company or organisation uses my (paid) bandwidth to
do that tracking. Why am I paying for the privelege of having my behaviour recorded and analysed ??#$@!!

Technosaurus had a thread dedicated to finding ways to eliminate the delays caused by google etc redirecting
to websites that do the monitoring and analysing: http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=82639

I guess you could make a case for saying that the owner of a website has the right to allow whatever
monitoring / tracking they want, but I feel the least they should do is warn the user that the tracking / redirecting
is about to occur, will cost the user time and money, and giving them the opportunity to go elsewhere.

[gcmartin]

Question: Barkin and mikeb, Does Firefox have those phisihing and malware options as in Seamonkey--they are also able to be turned off in Google Chrome. In general, is there any reason to prefer SeaMonkey to Firefox in this regard?

As I see it, although there are other browser that people use as well, the "top 4" in Puppyland that most posts are about is:

• SeaMonkey
• Firefox
• Chromium
• Chrome

Since they are supported differently, you might have 2-4 "Security Add-on" PET packages for these 4 browsers. There would only be 2 PETs, if you classify the related versions; Mozilla (Ff &SM) and Google (Chrome & Chromium).

This could be a plus to the many users as some of the hardening aspects would be already packaged such that it reduces the constant searching efforts that go on when new PUPs are tested/used or when new browsers are added to a PUP by the user(s)..

Hope this helps

Happy Holiday Season to each and everyone in this community! Peace be with you.

Edited: some typos and clarity in a sentence

[Barkin]

... they should do is warn the user that the tracking / redirecting is about to occur ...

In recent years this was brought in in Europe where websites must warn users that cookies (which can be used to track) are included ..
http://www.theeucookielaw.com/

However with browser-fingerprinting, cookies stored on your computer are not necessary for tracking.

[greengeek]

In recent years this was brought in in Europe where websites must warn users that cookies (which can be used to track) are included ..
http://www.theeucookielaw.com/

Interesting that the link states that the law also applies to HTML5 local storage. It bothers me how much control HTML5 gives to the remote website, and I'd like to know what I can do to ensure I minimise it's impact on my system.

[bark_bark_bark]

don't use a html5 capable browser

[nooby]

Mike wrote

they also generate large files
which is why I untick them and delete those large files

How do I know how to delete them
if you don't tell the name of these files

Warm Christmas hug to you please give me the name.

I use Firefox 26

[mikeb]

/root/.mozilla/firefox....profile......

urlclassifier3.sqlite ...delete when not running and after changing the setting...

mike

[nooby]

Mike thanks for that info.
I should take a look but
I got concerned about me not
getting your advice that I don't get.

delete when not running and after changing the setting...

oops do you mean when Firefox is not running?
Change what setting? Damn I feel so dense or dim bulb.

Here is my profile at .mozilla

[General]
StartWithLastProfile=1

[Profile0]
Name=default
IsRelative=1
Path=bxzh9zq3.default

so I should go into that directory?
bxzh9zq3.default okay I try that one then.

and look for urlclassifier3.sqlite whic is
on my set up 5MB big. Thanks I get it now
but I almost got headache to wild guess
what to do

So what I still fail to get is

after changing the setting.

Maybe you wrote about that further up in thread

[Barkin]

... what I still fail to get is

after changing the setting.

Maybe you wrote about that further up in thread

I think Mike is referring to the settings to disable in-browser anti-phishing anti-malware , (see attachment).

For most people Phishing is more of a concern than Google tracking web their browsing , if you disable the anti-phishing "block reported web forgeries" you stop FireFox-browser communicating with Google without your permission , but without this type of anti-phishing service you are are more likely to get phished. I have the WOT addon for firefox which warns me about dodgy links on the page viewed, ( NB: like Google, WOT can track your browsing with this type of anti-phishing anti-malware service ).

[mikeb]

Like antivirus, anti phishing can only block KNOWN sites...the next time a new domain is used or virus is written they fail, so to me a little futile.... better to simply use less vunerable software to interface with the internet....you might be in contact but no real harm gets done that way.

Our email domain gets blocked occasionally by some mail hosts as it gets tagged as a spam source.....who knows why but its annoying and we don't spam anyone...I find such 'protection' lists dubious really. Its also funny as google and yahoo broadcast their emails via their messengers which brings in spam quite happily yet get so finiky about other hosts.

back to the question it's a funny one as for some those urlclassifier3.squlites can get huge...

mike

[nooby]

Thanks to both of you
and now I get it. Much appreciated you cared.
I'm not the sharpest knife in my Out house drawer

[playdayz]

Hallelujah, we have some actual data, and the data gives what I regard as a very useful and usable option. Adblock Plus is now available with anti-tracking and anti-malware lists to supplement their traditional anti-ad list, and a study from Stanford concludes that this combo is the one of the most effective at blocking tracking. Under Disable Tracking at the Adblock Plus site you will find a link to the study and links to add the anti-tracking and anti-malware lists -> https://adblockplus.org/en/features I have always used Adblock Plus (personally I don't see why anyone wouldn't) and I have been using the two new lists with no negative impact on browsing convenience. The anti-malware list is *not* the google list mentioned in this discussion as far as I can tell, so one can turn off those anti-malware and anti-phishing options in Firefox. In Add-ons, I set Update for Adblock Plus to On to make sure of the latest lists. One can also enable the Do Not track option in Firefox, and with those things done I think the goals of blocking tracking in order to speed up browsing by blocking internet traffic to the multiple trackers embedded in many pages, avoid malware, and avoid tracking are achieved as best as can be with a set it and forget it approach. Plus this is done with only one add-on which should be more efficient with less possibility of bad interactions.

In the screenshot, EasyList and EasyPrivacy are the Adblock lists, but the Fanboy lists should also work with Adblock Plus, but I haven't tested that for usability.

There are some other messages that I would like to reply to but I am going traveling in the morning and I wanted to make sure to post this.

Oh, how to add Adblock Plus. In Firefox, go to Tools -> Addons and search for Adblock Plus (remember that you need to add the other two lists to achieve these goals)

[bark_bark_bark]

One can also enable the Do Not track option in Firefox

I would avoid using that option. It is a weak standars only accepted by less than 1/500,000th of the internet. Plus this is a weak standard (which is more dangerous than no standard, but still it this is very risky).

[playdayz]

One can also enable the Do Not track option in Firefox

I would avoid using that option. It is a weak standars only accepted by less than 1/500,000th of the internet. Plus this is a weak standard (which is more dangerous than no standard, but still it this is very risky).

Yes. It does very little according to the Stanford report because the trackers ignore it.

[greengeek]

don't use a html5 capable browser

What I would really like to have is an HTML5 capable browser (I think this will become unavoidable...) but with
easily handled inbuilt controls for limiting the HTML5 functions so that local storage is forbidden, but other
features selectable as desired. (Something a bit like the Internet Explorer slider that Microsoft offers for
selecting between "high-medium-low" security web connection).

Maybe something like:

^ HTML5 without any restrictions
|
| HTML5 with minimal local storage and minimal tracking
|
| HTML5 with no storage but minimal tracking
|
| HTML5 with maximum restrictions (no tracking, no cookies, no storage)
v

etc etc

[nooby]

I have used NoScript but being as noob
as I am I fail to get how to use AdBlock

No criticism to the Devs of Adblock at all.

I usually fail to get every interface or program
I try to get how to set up or use. A big sadness
that I am that bad at tech and software things.

I have loved computing for some 50 years
and had great hope me could manage it.

I bought books on Assembler programming
but totally failed. Sorry being that off topic.

[mikeb]

(Something a bit like the Internet Explorer slider that Microsoft offers for
selecting between "high-medium-low" security web connection).

you mean make something like that but that actually does something useful..... thanks for the chuckle ...brightened up my day. Once I learnt that very mechanism is one of the gateways to viruses (the zone system) it sort of lost its apparent power.

...thought I would drift off topic too.

Nice to have some actual statistics to work with playdayz rather than ...'well it seems ok for me stuff'. My suggestions are more performance tweaks anyway.