

 Facebook Disconnect - jmonegro
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ejpepffjfmamnambagiibghpglaidiec

======
mdasen
The author of Facebook Disconnect (Brian Kennish) has written another Chrome
Extension called "Disconnect"
([https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/jeoacafpbcihiomhla...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/jeoacafpbcihiomhlakheieifhpjdfeo?hc=search&hcp=main)).
Disconnect not only deals with Facebook, but also Google, Yahoo, Twitter, and
Digg tracking.

~~~
budwin
Just as an FYI, disconnect causes a number of login problems on a few of said
sites rendering them unusable.

~~~
Urgo
Yeah I just installed the firefox version, saw it blocked even google charts,
and uninstalled it. If it had adblock like control to whitelist domains it
might be ok but as it is, cool idea, but no thanks.

------
orijing
"This extension can access: Your data on all websites"

This part made me chuckle a bit. We are so afraid of Google and Facebook
tracking our searches/web pages, yet we freely install plugins from 3rd party
developers that can easily gather everything that Google and Facebook can get,
and more. In theory, I could make a Facebook Disconnect 2, which secretly
sends data back home about what pages have been visited, and nobody except the
most vigilant (enough to read the source of the plugin) would know.

Why do we not trust large corporations who have billions of dollars at stake,
but trust independent developers who have little skin in the game? Is it
because we are those developers, so there's some form of camaraderie?

~~~
alexgartrell
People don't trust Facebook because they don't know what we (fellow Facebook
Engineer[0]) know about what it's like on the inside. They don't believe that
people are just legitimately interested in making stuff that people will like
and use, that we obsess over the stats to make sure that we're making stuff
that people and use (they think it's tracking them), and that ultimately, we
just want to give people ads that they don't hate (for some reason this is
called "selling data to advertisers").

Ultimately though, the opinions of Hacker Newsers (a group with which I've
proudly associated for ~3 years now) are only a hint at how much we're helping
(or hurting) the world, and while we should always keep it in mind, we need to
recognize that this is a group which is accustomed to the IRC style of social
networking.

I don't blame anyone at Hacker News for thinking "we" are evil, because we do
a shitty job at communicating what we're actually doing and why[1] (and we
can't really communicate everything anyway). Instead, we've just gotta try to
address the problems that are legitimate and be as transparent as possible.

Shortly, if you call tin foil hat theories tin foil hat theories (even with
sound logic as to _why_ they are tin foil hat theories), all you're going to
do is convince the tin foil hat theorists that it's yet another elaborate step
in manipulating them into believing The Corporate Directive.

And, everyone else, for what it's worth, I'd much prefer it if we could just
go back to hacker news on here. I'm a C Hacker first (before being
assimilated, I contributed to open source projects like Chromium and Mongrel2,
because I loved the problems (coincidentally the same reason I allowed myself
to become assimilated into facebook -- I work on code that's hit my millions
of users billions of times a day[2])

[0] Cache Infra in 1050 B2

[1] We've enabled applications to write to our network as they wish without
introducing much friction or overhead (a single approval), but we've managed
to communicate that in such a way that instead of leading people to believe
that we've put the onus on developers (and users, as they must ultimately know
which apps to trust), we've instead "put our tentacles" into yet another area
and are again sharing without reason.

[2] memcache protocol stack stuff, we issue lots (and lots and lots) of
requests per page load :)

~~~
nknight
> _People don't trust Facebook because they don't know what we (fellow
> Facebook Engineer[0]) know about what it's like on the inside._

Bull. We don't trust Facebook because of its actions. Beacon, account
deletion, random modification of privacy settings and policies. Facebook has
done virtually nothing to earn trust, and taken several clear, conscious
actions that violate trust.

Your perception of Facebook's _intent_ does _nothing_ to change what Facebook
has _actually done to its users_.

~~~
pclark
I bet - as someone that respects what Facebook has crafted but really has no
vested interest in their long term success - that Facebook _internally_ feels
that it has done a ton at demonstrating it's awareness and empathy towards
users and their privacy and has concluded that actually, users as a meaningful
percentage, do not give a crap about what Facebook does or doesn't do wit
their data.

------
Luyt
Also see <http://www.ghostery.com/> if you don't want to be tracked by web
beacons in a more general way, i.e. not only by Facebook.

------
missy
There is also another interesting site:

[http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Facebook-vs-
Datenschu...](http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Facebook-vs-
Datenschuetzer-Streit-um-Like-Button-geht-weiter-1338660.html)

This German site uses a double opt in button for button like "Like ". Press
twice on the grey like button and then it only turns into a normal like.

------
ecocentrik
How does Disconnect compare with Chromeblock?

I find it kind of amusing that facebook doesn't display integrated comments at
all if you block their cookies. Not to worry, TechCrunch w/out comments ≈
TechCrunch with comments.

------
exit
when i want to log in to fb i open an incognito window. i haven't looked into
this myself but the assumption is that cookies from incognito will not leak
into my normal session.

it would be great if chrome allowed users to create a separate "sandboxed"
browser session in each window. i'd like to maintain just one session for each
service i log into, including google/gmail.

hmm, maybe that's why they haven't implemented this.

------
Urgo
Available for Firefox & Safari as well from the authors site:
<http://disconnect.me/>

------
missy
In Europe there is a similar movment but it comes from the EU. There has been
a big change in the handling of cookies and other privacy issues, so that now
you are only allowed to save data if when someone visits your site and selects
some pop to allow the site to save it. big problems with analytics

<http://www.ico.gov.uk/>

------
irrumator
This recent Facebook smear campaign is interesting to watch on HN. Is it the
work of an organized group, or just the hivemind's gobbling up of anything
anti-Facebook? Either way, it's poor form and not news, this plugin and its
more broader 'disconnect' sibling have been linked before several times.

Nb: I have no skin in this game, I personally don't have a Facebook account,
but it's not because I'm some anti-FB zealot.

The frontpage of HN has been very disappointing in the last week with non-
substance links littering it, and even less worthwhile comments accompanying
them. Let's try not to upvote such frivolous and low-signal links.

~~~
barrkel
There's a fairly wide appreciation among technically aware people of just how
deep Facebook is getting its tentacles into things. Sentiment has been turning
anti-FB for quite some time; it's been aggravated by FB's blunders in the
past, by defaulting to over-invasiveness, then dialing back in response to
outcry. So whenever FB gets press for something that can be viewed in the same
light, there's a lot of judging them by their past actions.

So while there may be an element of opportunism in covert anti-FB PR, it's
working with dry kindling. There's real fire here, not just smoke.

~~~
TallTalesOrTrue
Sometimes I get a feeling that the hivemind of HN is critical of anything that
is not associated google. I could be wrong as I am a fairly new user. But
that's just what I have observed in last few weeks.

~~~
click170
If the Google+ Like button appeared on anywhere near as many sites as
Facebook, I'd be concerned about Google too.

I'm kind of surprised NoScript doesn't have an option of disabling scripts on
a site-by-site basis. Ergo, if I have two tabs open, Google+ and some other
page containing a Google+ Like button, I should be able to enable Google
scripts on _only_ the Google+ page. As it stands, when a script from a domain
is enabled, it is enabled for any and all tabs you have open. I think that
behavior can be improved.

~~~
mike-cardwell
I'd guess that Google Analytics and Google Adsense exist on more websites than
Facebook like buttons, and they pose the exact same threat.

~~~
click170
Touche!

------
nextparadigms
I use WidgetBlock. I'm not sure if it does exactly the same thing, but I use
it against sites that are heavy with widgets and scripts and make the site
load 5x slower (like Techcrunch, although I barely even visit it nowadays).

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hgiihiookhijpbhafl...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hgiihiookhijpbhaflohognbhmamdnol)

I'm going to give Facebook Disconnect a try, too.

------
skrebbel
Ok so why would one use a browser made by Big Evil Privacy-hating Spy Firm #1
and then install an extension to prevent logging by Big Evil Privacy-hating
Spy Firm #2?

I'd be _very_ amazed if Chrome would not, now or at some point in the
(transparently and unstoppably auto-updated) future, keep track of what you're
doing, too.

~~~
fragsworth
If Google really did that with Chrome you would either A) know about it
already, or B) find out later when someone discovers the secret logging
mechanism.

Scenario B is so potentially devastating to Google that I highly doubt they
would implement something like that.

------
kaitari
I've already developed the habit of only accessing Facebook in an incognito
tab, but cool extension nonetheless.

------
eli
This broke parts of the Disqus admin page last time I tried it.

------
matmann2001
Does anyone know of an Opera Extension like this?

------
poona
In order to block Facebook, this extension is injecting javascript into every
page you load. It absolutely should come with a large warning.

------
poona
You can copy the source code and make your own plugin from it ;)

------
devraj
We are so afraid of Google and Facebook tracking our searches/web pages, yet
we freely install plugins from 3rd party developers that can easily gather
everything that Google and Facebook can get, and more. In theory, I could make
a Facebook Disconnect 2, which secretly sends data back home about what pages
have been visited, and nobody except the most vigilant (enough to read the
source of the plugin) would know.

------
power78
I don't really like that he puts tracking javascript in his addons. Take a
look at the source of this Facebook Disconnect addon, its at the bottom. Why
don't people just write a simple bash script that toggles blocks for the
facebook domains in the hosts file?

~~~
jonknee
Can you link to that? The source of the extension is about a dozen lines and
doesn't contain anything of the sort.

[http://code.google.com/p/byoogle/source/browse/trunk/google/...](http://code.google.com/p/byoogle/source/browse/trunk/google/chrome/fbdc/content.js)

~~~
power78
I'm sorry I was wrong. The file that the install button does not link to the
addon like the Firefox addon site does, so saving the link is not the addon. I
apologize.

