Comment QSHW Re: Facebook increasing tracking


Should People Be Able to Demand That Websites 'Do Not Track' Them?


Facebook increasing tracking (Score: 3, Interesting)

by on 2015-10-15 10:02 (#QJ0M)

This is a good article explaining how Facebook is becoming even more intrusive, and how it might be violating current laws:

I'd say web browsers are to blame. They are built on the model of "trust everything", which is the source of so many problems. Popups and the blink tag are a thing of the past, because web browsers chose to eliminate them. They could just as easily eliminate most "web bugs" that allow user tracking and other annoyances. If privacy and security were primary considerations, instead of "Does this pixel show up EXACTLY where it was supposed to?" the web could be a far faster, safer, and more private place.

In the extreme case, imagine all web browsers only rendered basic HTML by default... If you want to accept cookies, load images, scripts, or 3rd party CSS on a given page, you just hit a toolbar button to do so, but otherwise you get the basic version (with placeholders) with no possibility of 3rd party tracking, no floating toolbars or overlay ads, no user-hostile scripts that disable right-clicking, etc. It would be slightly inonvenient for users, but has many advantages, and would be a strong incentive for sites to rely less on those web bugs.

Re: Facebook increasing tracking (Score: 1)

by on 2015-10-17 15:30 (#QSHW)

I've recently started using the browser extension uMatrix for control over the first and third party requests made by a website. Previously, I used RequestPolicy for this, but uMatrix allows for finer grained control, such as blocking/allowing a specific class of request (such as images, css, or javascript) by domain on a site-by-site basis. The inbuilt support to block known bad hosts is also a plus. In the extreme case, you can achieve the functionality that you mentioned by blocking everything by default.

Junk Status

Not marked as junk