Quote from: tomos on October 15, 2012, 12:31 PM

Re Ghostery & Trackerblock (from another thread):

Quote from: TaoPhoenix on October 07, 2012, 12:46 AM

I ... switched out Ghostery for TrackerBlock, on the theory that even if "less evil", Ghostery is run by an ad company, and hopefully PrivacyChoice.org ... isnt?

PrivacyChoice is also a commercial entity - I dunno if I'd choose one of the two over the other... and something about PrivacyChoice seems fishy (not the least running a commercial site on a .org address), but opt-out cookies? I am to trust that anybody respects those? LOL! In general the addon seems to be focused more on cookies, than to keep from executing javascript or loading tracking beacon images, which is what Ghostery does.

From what I understand, PrivacyChoice is geared for the publishing companies, where Abine, the makers of Do Not Track Plus is a security company.  Kind of makes you wonder where PrivacyChoice's loyalties lie...

DNT+ don't use "Opt-Out" cookies, they actually "Block" tracking of all kinds.  I think opt-out cookies are worthless.  It's the fox guarding the henhouse.  I want to block all the tracking crap, not flag them with a useless cookie...

  But, to each their own I suppose.  lol

yes, I have tried PrivacyChoice/TrackerBlock and I don't like it : it creates a lot of traffic, slows down browsing and I have big doubts about it.

So I'm staying with DNT+ for much the same reasons as f0dder.

Quote from: joiwind on October 16, 2012, 09:52 AM

yes, I have tried PrivacyChoice/TrackerBlock and I don't like it : it creates a lot of traffic, slows down browsing and I have big doubts about it.

So I'm staying with DNT+ for much the same reasons as f0dder.

Does DNT+ cover all the flash cookies and stuff? That's the main reason I ever used Ghostery past the first year, after I knew who was on what page - I didn't think reg. AdBlock dealt with flash cookies.

Not sure about DNT+ and flash cookies - I'll check.

Does DNT+ cover all the flash cookies and stuff? That's the main reason I ever used Ghostery past the first year, after I knew who was on what page - I didn't think reg. AdBlock dealt with flash cookies.

How can users prevent Flash cookie tracking?
Like normal cookies, Flash cookies are represented as small files on users' computers. To prevent Flash cookies from being placed, users can adjust preferences on a per site basis in the Macromedia Website Privacy Settings Panel http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings_manager06.html. Using this tool, Flash cookies can be completely disabled or allowed on a per domain basis.
To get to the settings panel, right click on any Flash movie, click settings and then advanced. Macromedia has published a walk through guide http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=52697ee8 to help users disable Flash cookies.
Users can get rid of the current Flash cookies and their tracking information simply going to the correct folder (see below) and deleting them. The Flash cookies are organized in folders according to the site that placed them, so users can choose which objects to keep.
Firefox users can use Objection http://www.yardley.ca/objection/ , a recently developed extension that adds a LSO deletion tool to Firefox preferences.
Where are Flash cookies stored?
Flash cookies are stored in a special directory depending on the operating system on the client machine. They are arranged in directories according to the site that placed them on the computer (look for a file with a .SOL extension):
Windows C:\Documents and Settings\[username]\Application Data\Macromedia\Flash Player
Macintosh OSX /Users/[username]/Library/Preferences/Macromedia/Flash Player
GNU-Linux ~/.macromedia

Basically the trouble with DNT is "Hmm. This user says he doesn't want to be on any lists. So does this one. Ooh, I know this one! Let's make a list of all the users who don't want to be on a list!"

^ +1 for what @cyberdiva wrote.

Thought I'd mention this as it seems like it is relevant and could be useful:
I had made a comment recommending HostsMan in a discussion here: Re: Host Editor 7 - Hassle free host editing for Win7-XP

In the Malwarebytes blog, they have two very interesting and related posts about malware avoidance, where there is a risk of getting malware loaded/activated by download links built into (concealed in) deceptive and honest-looking adverts, and how the use of HostsMan could help to mitigate that risk:

• Pick a Download, Any Download!
• Pick A Download… Part 2
  
  Quote

  The benefits of using HostsMan over AdBlock or AdBlock Plus is that the blacklisted domains which HostsMan prevents you from visiting, also prevents you from accidentally being infected with malware from known exploit sites, the other applications only block ads.

I had switched HostsMan off as it had seemed a tad too paranoid, and was becoming annoying, and I saw a comment on the blog which shows that to be an issue:

davidperriman on October 26, 2012 at 2:36 pm said:
I have HostsMan installed and my criticism is that their database seems to contain an awful lot of sites which appear to be benign. Many’s the time I have tried to download or look at something on the strength of a review or recommendation from a trusted source, magazine, etc. and an error (cannot find server at……) is returned, Sure enough, when I do a search in HostMan’s list, it’s in there (why?) and I have to edit it out manually before I can get to it successfully. Just what is their criterion for inclusion in the list?

Still, the Malwarebytes blog posts are worth a read IMHO.

My reservations about HostMan are that, to use the host files which are available for download, you probably need to have a fair degree of trust in the providers - about whom I frankly know nothing. They could be **AA stooge files for all I know.