It has a nicer and more functional UI. I like a popup on page load where you can instantly see what is blocked and what isn't. There's an option to "run once" a blocked widget on page, which can be handy.
From the article:
A Popular Ad Blocker Also Helps the Ad Industry
Millions of people use the tool Ghostery to block online tracking technology—some may not realize that it feeds data to the ad industry.
It's good to have alternatives, and I prefer Disconnect as Ghostery's motivations seem a little clouded.
They make an anti-tracking product and they takes money from advertisers. That's their life blood, they need to track you, that's how they survive and it puts them in a very precarious situation. So trusting them to value your interests over their own is naive at best. If you are comfortable with the risk and the trade-off, good for you, but dismissing this as a non-issue is disingenious.
but dismissing this as a non-issue is disingenious.
I can't think of a clear business model for disconnect.me.
In any case, it's good to have a choice. People who are serious (who don't mind breaking everything) are probably using something like RequestPolicy to control cross-site requests. https://www.requestpolicy.com/
I wish this trend of using videos instead of text would end soon.
For more information checkout the Github project page for each project below.
- The default settings had Disconnect fighting with HTTPS Everywhere and caused resource contention in Chrome. Please follow the Unix philosophy and just recommend users install HTTPS Everywhere instead of having a naive implementation embedded in your unrelated product.
- It was unintuitive that the number incremented on the button is the total number of requests and not the number of requests blocked.
I look forward to the days that these types of extensions work well enough that I can install them on my parents computers and not have to worry about pages being broken, but them still having their privacy. Keep up the good work.
n. 13. Informal An activity, action, or enterprise that yields neither marked gain nor marked loss: "[The company] doesn't do badly. That is, it's a wash" (Harper's).
Developers need to start testing their sites with these addons more to make sure silly errors like that aren't done (some optional tracking request failing to complete shouldn't make an entire app fail).
To back up the op and gp, I’m seeing more and more sites that don’t degrade gracefully when their analytics service doesn’t load. I do think devs should check that their site still works when non-essential services fail to load because, even when the user isn’t running Disconnect or a similar app, this scenario is bound to happen — e.g., when there’s a network issue somewhere.
You could cloak the cookies so they're pageview specific. Or inject your own functions in place of the ones that are being blocked.
Whether analytics is an essential service or not is a pretty up in the air question.
To allow / cause your site to break when analytics aren't served is, in essence, attempting to enforce an unspoken contract between gathering user info and serving them data.
As far as I'm concerned, a site that doesn't work when analytics aren't served is a site I will literally never use.
But even if you disagree, you would do end user support a huge favor if you could mention that "It alters the webpages you visit and may break them." next to the download button.
An online article, friends or family send people to Disconnect and they click the install button. After that it protects them by "disconnecting" from "tracking sites". I promise you most people have no idea how it works. Don't believe me, try it: if you see a normal person using Disconnect let them explain to you what it does, how it works and also ask what the Disconnect visualizer says about who is sending data to whom.
That's like trying to replace the screen on your phone and then complaining that it doesn't work and that Samsung/Apple should test their devices with your screen installation skills.
I would rather spend my time making what I have better rather than fixing bugs caused by someone else.
(Of course I now have no idea if they ever improved performance)
They essentially redirect your search query to google and return you the result. But they don't collect your IP nor anything else. https://startpage.com/eng/protect-privacy.html
$ cat /usr/share/applications/chromium-browser-incognito.desktop
Name=Chromium Incognito Web Browser
GenericName=Incognito Web Browser
Comment=Access the Internet
Exec=/usr/bin/chromium-browser --incognito %U
[NewWindow Shortcut Group]
Name=Open a New Window
[Incognito Shortcut Group]
Name=Open a New Window in incognito mode
[TempProfile Shortcut Group]
Name=Open a New Window with a temporary profile
This comes up a fair amount on Hacker News and in http://www.reddit.com/r/Privacy and I've seen plenty of posts and guides like https://prism-break.org/en/ and http://www.logicalincrements.com/firefox/ that just list a bunch of plugins. What I'm looking for is a set of use cases.
This is anonymous usage tracking of the trackers encountered which is sold to businesses to "help them market to consumers more transparently, better manage their web properties and comply with privacy standards."
I would like to see more of a comparison of 'effectiveness' of both extensions though, if such a thing were possible.
Or you could run your own dns but that's a bit more complicated to set up.
It is 3:00 am the app breaks in production while the development version magically works. You question your ability as a developer and a human being in general while blaming your browser, your os, your DNS secretly knowing in the back of your head, that that you must have done something really, really stupid. Why could you not have waited until tomorrow to push?
Finally the mixed feeling of relief and thinking you are the dumbest person in the world, when you remember your hosts file while hacking over SSH on production files, which you totally should have considered instantaneously.
I remember reading a story, where the legal department of a company in Germany sent hundreds of cease-and-desist orders to websites, which where all displaying their images. Strangely the image just appeared on company computers …
Thanks for pointing this out though. ;)
It's also endorsed by mozilla, which makes me trust it more. I've been using it for a while (on top of noscript) and it's quite informative and seems to work well.
My personal setup is noscript with careful whitelisting which I've found to effectively disable most tracking.
Somewhat skeptical, given that Mozilla referred to in-browser ads as "user-enhancing":
In this case I think Mozilla is right, many users will be happy to have a quick facebook/amazon/twitter/ebay shortcut out of the box.
Common tracking sites – Facebook, Google, and Twitter – are shown separately to make them easy to block or unblock. Click any icon to block or unblock a site.
Click the Facebook or Twitter icons to share these stats with your friends.
Anyone else find that rather ironic?
From a website owner's perspective privacy plugins are ad-blockers.
I run a website that has one sponsor and their ads aren't blocked by privacy tools - because it's just some static HTML text, link and an image on the page. So I'm not sure what "local ads" you are referring to.
(In much the same way, I don't see a whole bunch of ads because I use a Flashblocker ... but ads don't have to be flash)
> From a website owner's perspective privacy plugins are ad-blockers.
If that's how a website owner thinks, then I'd say they have a very narrow idea of what an ad can be.
Ghosterly and Co blocks those common third party solutions even when run locally. E.g. from the Ghostery source:
For Ghostery, I make sure that new trackers added to the list are automatically blocked, and disable its cookie blocking. With Cookie Monster, I block all cookies by default, only whitelisting the sites that I wish to maintain being logged into (primarily the sites I run.)
With Cookie Monster you get the two-click ability to temporarily allow cookies from a particular website, and the two-click ability to revoke all sites previously allowed temporarily. Being able to quickly manage the individual cookies set for a particular site (again two clicks) is also great.
Ghostery, Cookie Monster, Tree-Style Tabs and Download Statusbar are the four things that I install on a browser the first time I use it. I add HTTPS Everywhere, User Agent Switcher and Video DownloadHelper if I'm going to use it for more than a few hours.
That's the combination of plugins that renders me unable to switch from Firefox:)
edit: I don't know how I forgot the Resurrect Pages plugin.
edit2: Crap, I forgot Flashblock. I might be hopelessly embedded in a Firefox workflow.
(Currently browsing on my iPhone, so searching a bit tedious)