Avoiding Tracking - Now with Data

[majorfoo]

I use current seamonkey 2.23 with preferences set up as shown

Do you think this helps me to really avoid tracking?

[gcmartin]

@MajorFoo points out some of the standard elements browsers provide to allow reasonable use and protection. Yes those settings will filter certain kinds of activities and provide a level of behavior to control comings and goings on the Internet.

Beyond these elements, many people have personal preferences to certain kinds of settings and even certain browsers. So expect others to offer their ideas to security as its seen. I have been a Seamonkey user since the original Netscape==>Mozilla days.

But, as others have pointed, there are add-ons which can be added to add more hardening to the surface of your browser with add-ons. Some to the problems we are asked over the years is about which add-ons and what settings must be done so that any given user will have the protection they anticipate by the use of the browser settings AND the setting in each add-on that is added to your browser. The unfortunate issue is that each add-on has its own structure, controls, and setup which are different than EVERY OTHER add-on. So arriving at a consistent level of protection can be a little-bit of a challenge in desired behavior.

Again if a Security Add-on PET exist for each browser with some standard add-on items contained (vs. downloading each add-on individually) it could deliver a consistent start for users in their use negating each user having to remember locate and download helpful protective add-ons, as is done today.

[Barkin]

I use current seamonkey 2.23 with preferences set up as shown

Do you think this helps me to really avoid tracking?

If the objective is to avoid tracking by Google don't tick the boxes I have coloured red (below) as they are Google services ...

What information is sent to Mozilla or its partners when Phishing and Malware Protection are enabled?

...in the event that you encounter a reported phishing or malware site. Before blocking the site, Firefox will request a double-check to ensure that the reported site has not been removed from the list since your last update. In both cases, existing cookies you have from google.com, our list provider, may also be sent.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing-and-malware-protection-work

[mikeb]

If the objective is to avoid tracking by Google don't tick the boxes I have coloured red (below) as they are Google services ...

they also generate large files which is why I untick them and delete those large files ... I don't consider what they do worthwhile...malicious sites are pretty much a problem for IE users anyway.

Like the other poster I am interested in browser efficiancy...if reducing data harvesting helps then so be it.

If someone feels their life is richer by logging my search for washing machine bearings then so be it. No government agency is the slightest bit interested in my crappy habits or the other 99.99999% of traffic on the net... sure they could target a suspect but who is sitting there sifting through unimaginable piles of data on the offchance a terrorist is buying explosives off ebay...

ok must go.... got some secret documents to post on facebook...and does anyone happen to have my bank details cos I seem to have mislaid them?

mike

[playdayz]

I am seeing a lot of agreement. First, we are all pessimists. "There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide," (except to stop using the internet)

greengeek: I don't believe it is even possible to 'hide' what you are doing anymore.
nooby: I have that view too. I am a pessimist.If the NSA and similar bodies wants to know then they sure will see to it that they find the means.

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

gcmartin wrote:

Secure features for popular browsers...which would collect several add-ons into a simple secure addition to such. Even if such a PET existed, it does NOT need be the greatest to provide usefulness

Yes, that's a/the goal. And I agree with nooby again

playdayz I think that is a good goal but I would warn people that maybe it help with some privacy but not all.

Tentative first conclusion: it is complicated as heck trying to find anything that would be "one-size-fits-all." Experienced users can configure add-ons and browser settings the way they want for their own browsing uses, but as a designer my goal would be to find a package that would work for most everyone and make some improvement without interfering with ease of use, etc. I think that means that add-ons should work with defaults for the popular web sites--luckily most are trying to do that.

Right now I am running NoScript and DoNotTrackMe together in Firefox 27 and my websites seem OK. An added benefit is that they seem to be blocking ads also, so I am not running AdBlock Plus as usual. I will keep experimenting and reading this thread and try to correlate something that may satisfy greengeek's priorities and be useful to newbies--and nooby Then I would post it for comment.

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?

Question: bark_bark_bark, Why did you say that DNTM doesn't work and compromises privacy itself? And as I say, DNTM is less intrusive on weather.com--as Ghostery blocks the radar map. Ghostery seems very good otherwise. Ghostery does have better ratings, but they both have 500,000-900,000 users. I cannot see on first glance what blocked url is killing the radar map or I could customize.

Comment: I freely admit that part of my opposition to tracking is personal and philosophical (the other part is greengeek's #1). If you want a laugh here is a short explanation: Tracking treats people as objects to be marketed to, and I regard treating people as objects to be ethically wrong. "Consumerism is an abomination because it degrades the Earth and the human spirit." I would like not to participate and even interfere to the extent possible, even though I know it will not make any difference to the world at large.

Thanks for the comments. It is good to be communicating with greengeek, mikeb, majorfoo, nooby and other old friends. Happy holidays to all.

[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)