
Ghostery - Attention all NoScript users - dcancel
http://news.ghostery.com/post/103180001/attention-all-noscript-users
======
jokermatt999
Is this a joke, or did he actually mess with yet _another_ add on? If this is
true, and wasn't fixed in the latest version, it seems like a death knell for
No Script. The Adblock business was bad enough, but apologizing for one and
doing nothing about the other is wrong. He obviously knows that messing with a
users addons pisses them off, and has ignored that.

However, that's only if this isn't just a joke in poor taste.

~~~
ks
It seems to me that this has nothing to do with the plugin itself. From the
articles and the responses, it seems that it is only _his website_ that blocks
the CSS popups of Ghostely.

The plugin does not do any harm to ghostery. He just uses a CSS rule on his
_website_ to disable some of ghostery's functionality.

------
dcancel
A user's perspective: [http://yardley.ca/2009/05/04/when-blockers-block-the-
blocker...](http://yardley.ca/2009/05/04/when-blockers-block-the-blockers/)

"Finally, NoScript is still blocking Ghostery through a Ghostery-specific CSS
rule. This is especially vile, since Ghostery doesn’t affect NoScript’s
revenue model in the slightest - it’s just the tool I use to be informed about
the analytics and advertising technologies in use from site to site. The site
owners’ claim that he doesn’t like the look of the CSS overlay is completely
unacceptable - my browser, my computer, my ability to view the content in the
manner of my choosing."

~~~
tdavis
So, wait, let me get this straight: someone who is using a plugin to
circumvent the intended operation of something is complaining that it is
circumventing the intended operation of something?

How do people come to the conclusion that it is their
browser/computer/whatever when they intentionally install plugins and third-
party code to both change the operation of said browser/computer and change
how stuff is displayed on the page? Is it "mine" until I notice something I
don't want to be missing is missing, at which point it switches to being
"stolen" from me?

Where's the rationale? I just don't see it.

~~~
drewcrawford
> when they intentionally install plugins and third-party code to both change
> the operation of said browser/computer

Computers don't do anything until you install software. By installing/running
software, you tell them what to do.

~~~
tdavis
You missed the point entirely.

 _The site owners’ claim that he doesn’t like the look of the CSS overlay is
completely unacceptable - my browser, my computer, my ability to view the
content in the manner of my choosing._

How is it unacceptable? First off, you give up the ability to view the content
in the manner of your choosing as soon as you install a plugin that _filters
the content for you_. It would be like complaining about SPAM filtering
because it decides an important e-mail is SPAM; for _every other email_ it was
perfectly fine, but when it gets one wrong, suddenly it's stealing my email?
Please.

Secondly, it is completely the plugin developer's prerogative! If Mr. NoScript
doesn't like the look of the Ghostery CSS overlay and blocks it, that's his
choice! Nobody is asking him why NoScript blocks pop-ups or full-page overlays
or even text ads. And guess what, if people don't like it, they can _remove
the plugin_. And maybe everybody will. But I doubt it.

~~~
iamcalledrob
I think everyone is missing the point.

If you install and enable the Ghostery extension, it is because you want the
extension to do its thing.

There is no valid reason why another extension should deliberately and
specifically disable this behaviour, breaking Ghostery, when it is clearly
behaviour that the end user intended.

~~~
Jem
> There is no valid reason why another extension should deliberately and
> specifically disable this behaviour

It's not - as far as I could tell - this style is deployed on his websites,
not through his plugin.

It's a nifty trick, I've just added it to my own site.

------
ScottWhigham
The comments on the original user article seem to indicate that this is, in
fact, not true.

"You're wrong. You've taken an emotionally charged statement from some random
bystander and turned it into a conspiracy where there is in fact none. The
NoScript _extension_ is NOT blocking Ghostery behaviour.

It is in fact the noscript website, along with Giorgio Maone's other websites,
that are blocking the Ghostery box, through the stylesheets. (As are mine - my
website, I can style it how I like.)

Now that you've added fuel to the fire based on nothing but rumour, how are
you going to fix it?"

\----------------- And another -------------- "Just to clarify, the NoScript
_program_ NEVER blocked Ghostery: this would have been unacceptable as much as
the ABP workaround.

But the CSS is in the _website_ , and it doesn't prevent Ghostery from working
(the status bar info is still there).

Ghostery should use a notification bar like NoScript does: trying to delivery
notifications overlaying the content is never a good idea, especially if it's
security or privacy related, because it's entirely in the site's rights and
powers to tamper with it (hide, relocate, or even worse maliciously modifying
its content to mislead users).

 _BTW, it was done not to hide any info from the user, but because the box
covered the donation button. Any web site can do the same, and will do it if
you cover important parts of the page._

Now could we backpedal with the FUD?"

