Interesting Software and System News

[DavidR]

If you use NoScript in firefox, there should already be a blocker for Urchin tracker. If you have NoScript you can check it has that string present, open the about:config page and type urchin in the Search and it should show this.

If you have it no need to have another add-on just to do this task.

I see it as another way of weakening the overall structure of the internet by reducing the amount of revenue generated by legitimate advertising.

NoScript doesn't block adverts, it blocks scripts.

Something like AdBlockPlus blocks ads, I guess you aren't too familiar with firefox (being an IE10 advocate) or the add-ons used by it.

I wasn't talking about  NoScript but rather the program that Bob posted. I'm well aware of the difference between AdBlock and NoScript even though I don't use either one.

If you weren't talking about NoScript, then why quote my post which was about NoScript

[Dch48]

If you use NoScript in firefox, there should already be a blocker for Urchin tracker. If you have NoScript you can check it has that string present, open the about:config page and type urchin in the Search and it should show this.

If you have it no need to have another add-on just to do this task.

I see it as another way of weakening the overall structure of the internet by reducing the amount of revenue generated by legitimate advertising.

NoScript doesn't block adverts, it blocks scripts.

Something like AdBlockPlus blocks ads, I guess you aren't too familiar with firefox (being an IE10 advocate) or the add-ons used by it.

I wasn't talking about  NoScript but rather the program that Bob posted. I'm well aware of the difference between AdBlock and NoScript even though I don't use either one.

If you weren't talking about NoScript, then why quote my post which was about NoScript

Because it mentioned the other thing and whether it was needed or not.

[polonus]

If I listen right to Dch48 he would not favor the use of the following anti-tracking measures in IE, especially not the EasyList based on the popular EasyPrivacy subscription for Adblock Plus.-> http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/browser/TrackingProtectionLists/
Yes, Dch48,  this could be brought to IE now and already loads of users have this installed.

But as you consider it weakening the overall structure of the internet by reducing the amount of revenue generated by legitimate advertising,
you'd rather would not block these ads.

I am a browser user that does not feel the need to stand up or lobby for the rights of internet advertisers,
that is not in my interest and I get nothing paid for it .

So when I like to block ads and tracking in the browser I use,
I feel I should have that privilege

Or should that also be taken away from me like with Google blocking ad-blockers in their App-store
when they saw they could come away with it, because they had a large enough monopoly.

It always boils down to it that only advanced users that are apt enough to tweak their browsers can still circumvent this.

polonus

[SpeedyPC]

If I listen right to Dch48 he would not favor the use of the following anti-tracking measures in IE, especially not the EasyList based on the popular EasyPrivacy subscription for Adblock Plus.-> http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/browser/TrackingProtectionLists/
Yes, Dch48,  this could be brought to IE now and already loads of users have this installed.

But as you consider it weakening the overall structure of the internet by reducing the amount of revenue generated by legitimate advertising,
you'd rather would not block these ads.

I am a browser user that does not feel the need to stand up or lobby for the rights of internet advertisers,
that is not in my interest and I get nothing paid for it .

So when I like to block ads and tracking in the browser I use,
I feel I should have that privilege

Or should that also be taken away from me like with Google blocking ad-blockers in their App-store
when they saw they could come away with it, because they had a large enough monopoly.

It always boils down to it that only advanced users that are apt enough to tweak their browsers can still circumvent this.

polonus

OR you can used PrivDog http://privdog.com/ and you don't need AdBlocker Plus+

[Dch48]

If I listen right to Dch48 he would not favor the use of the following anti-tracking measures in IE, especially not the EasyList based on the popular EasyPrivacy subscription for Adblock Plus.-> http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/browser/TrackingProtectionLists/
Yes, Dch48,  this could be brought to IE now and already loads of users have this installed.

But as you consider it weakening the overall structure of the internet by reducing the amount of revenue generated by legitimate advertising,
you'd rather would not block these ads.

I am a browser user that does not feel the need to stand up or lobby for the rights of internet advertisers,
that is not in my interest and I get nothing paid for it .

So when I like to block ads and tracking in the browser I use,
I feel I should have that privilege

Or should that also be taken away from me like with Google blocking ad-blockers in their App-store
when they saw they could come away with it, because they had a large enough monopoly.

It always boils down to it that only advanced users that are apt enough to tweak their browsers can still circumvent this.

polonus

OR you can used PrivDog http://privdog.com/ and you don't need AdBlocker Plus+

Exactly, the new solution, PrivDog is in my opinion, the best alternative. It blocks potentially unsafe ads and replaces some of them with safe ones. Not all are replaced though. This allows for revenue to still be generated for the sites. The Comodo Dragon browser now includes PrivDog and it can be installed for FF and Chrome. There isn't an IE version yet but I will be using it when there is.

In answer to Polonus, I do use a tracking list in IE10. I use the one from privacychoice.org but sometimes feel guilty about it. They have two lists, one that blocks everything and one that allows certain known safe advertisers through. I use the second one. When I can use PrivDog instead, I will. In my opinion, if you block all ads, you are contributing to the eventual demise of the free web. I think that as users, we ARE obligated to support the structure in some way and the ability to completely circumvent doing so probably should be taken away. We all pay taxes to support our Governments and if we didn't, what would happen? The Governments would collapse and anarchy would ensue.

I don't have a problem with what Google did at all. Personally, I don't mind seeing ads at all. Sometimes they show me new products I wasn't aware of and sometimes they're more interesting than the site itself. I only use the IE list because I know that some ads can harbor malicious content. PrivDog takes care of that and for that matter, Comodo's free product prevents anything like that from establishing itself in the first place. Sometimes I disable the tracking list in IE because I want to see ads and I'm not a privacy nut.

 Oh yeah, you can also exclude certain sites from PrivDog monitoring and see the ads meant to be seen. I plan on doing that for the mmo-champion.com site that displays gaming and gaming hardware related ads. You can also set it to block all ads but that defeats it's purpose in my opinion.

[polonus]

Hi Dch48,

I do not feel bad at all about third party ad blocking and those blocks to prevent ad clicking fraud.
SEO spam is also as big a threat to our beloved internet freedom,
because the revenues go to cybercrime and co and what have they done towards free internet.
Not a lot but keeping the snort IDS alerts signature geeks busy.

When ads are being served up, I'd go for the ads from that site that I unblocked and that is the main site I view.

,And I agree with you there are items that should be blocked much urgently as malcoded  ads,
obfuscated tracking scripts that only add to monopolistic profiling and fingerprinting.
We know the few names that come up then.

Hidden iframes, hidden webbeacons and webbugs, tracking cookies.
All these issues have nothing to do with adserving
but only add to the purpose of the urge by some parties
to know all and everything about the browser user.
There is where I like to draw the line.

polonus

[Dch48]

Hi Dch48,

I do not feel bad at all about third party ad blocking and those blocks to prevent ad clicking fraud.
SEO spam is also as big a threat to our beloved internet freedom,
because the revenues go to cybercrime and co and what have they done towards free internet.
Not a lot but keeping the snort IDS alerts signature geeks busy.

When ads are being served up, I'd go for the ads from that site that I unblocked and that is the main site I view.

,And I agree with you there are items that should be blocked much urgently as malcoded  ads,
obfuscated tracking scripts that only add to monopolistic profiling and fingerprinting.
We know the few names that come up then.

Hidden iframes, hidden webbeacons and webbugs, tracking cookies.
All these issues have nothing to do with adserving
but only add to the purpose of the urge by some parties
to know all and everything about the browser user.
There is where I like to draw the line.

polonus

PrivDog is supposed to block ads that contain those kinds of things and serve up alternatives that are "sanitized". It is still a work in progress and not complete yet but it shows a lot of promise. My current tracking protection list blocks everything that is not approved by the Network Advertising Initiative so it works in somewhat the same way. They are trying to balance the privacy issues and the need for websites to generate revenue and I think it's the way to go rather than just blindly blocking everything like ABP does by default.

[polonus]

Hi Dch48,

This time  I see we have ariived at a point where the two of us have total agreement, and that is what we are after in our mutual discussions. That is why I like these threads where you post,  because of the "lean back", well as I said earlier here, "well founded" nature of your arguments.  The ad-world should have bundled their forces a long time ago to come together and  throw the "bad apples" out than rather turn a blind eye or even  took a buck on the side from the SEO and clickfraud abuse theater. Now that adblocking is  becoming more and more effective in total capacity and all over the browser range and also came to "bite" them a bit seriously, all of a sudden they are up in arms about this (see the recent discussion on blocking third party cookies by fx developers). Yes, Dch48, a few too many malcode banners and non-closable adware ads in between. Cannot feel sorry actually, for they mainly have themselves to blame i.m.h.o.

pol

[Asyn]

I am a browser user that does not feel the need to stand up or lobby for the rights of internet advertisers, that is not in my interest and I get nothing paid for it .

So when I like to block ads and tracking in the browser I use, I feel I should have that privilege

100% agree with you Damian.

[polonus]

Hi Dch48,

According to a recent report. the 2013 Browser Security Comparative Analysis from NSS labs,
the latest IE browser is not doing bad at all.

Blue E comes first and best at protecting your privacy out of the box.

Google Chrome does not have a very good privacy security score and hence comes last.
This is due to Google´s history in circumventing all sort of privacy protection measures.

For report results see: https://www.nsslabs.com/reports/2013-browser-security-comparative-analysis-privacy-0

See attached image.

polonus

[bob3160]

Junkware Removal Tool 5.2.2

Click here to see a Video I made of the program in action!

[iroc9555]

Yes, JRT seems to work well on crapware. Corrine uses it in the LandzDown Forum when cleaning malware. Just last week she got in touch with them (also AdwCleaner) to whitelist a Winpatrol folder that it was being detected by both.

http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=129489.msg965107#msg965107

[SpeedyPC]

Australia to ban region-locking to combat software rip-off
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/enterprise/383323/australia-to-ban-region-locking-to-combat-software-rip-off

[mchain]

Lenovo probes alleged NSA, GCHQ and MI5 PC ban:  http://www.itpro.co.uk/desktop-hardware/20301/lenovo-probes-alleged-nsa-gchq-and-mi5-pc-ban

[polonus]

Hi forum friends and web developers here,

Might be something for our forum friend, Dch48, as he is on IE.

Just stumbled upon this as I was reading about browser sniffing and detection as bad practice, like for instance the use in  javascript of

/*@cc_on!@*/  false

to detect IE. This is a browser check using a IE feature called something along the lines of conditional comments. Basically, in IE /*@cc_on!@*/ will "evaluate" to ! thereby making var stIsIE = !false; which is true, of course. All other browsers will ignore the comment and set var stIsIE = false;. (info webdeveloper MrMoo)
Then all browser developers in that thread agreed that capability testing would be a much better idea for developers, so I landed here at: IE tester -via the following link > http://www.my-debugbar.com/wiki/IETester/HomePage  (free software download tested here File size:38.93 MB File MD5:171975b4186faef2f512cb20ad594b0a
https://www.virustotal.com/nl/url/e9ef3c02b2a11a81363886848c13fc0210527978bc479f1e30d9398074dc1c94/analysis/)
Also for Win8 desktop... enjoy, IE users and webdevelopers for IE..

polonus