17 ms·

Containers are a feature built into Firefox. There are extensions that let you use them more generally with any given website. It's also quite useful to log int

by _jomo 8y ago

Containers are a feature built into Firefox. There are extensions that let you use them more generally with any given website. It's also quite useful to log into websites with multiple accounts at the same time. However, to prevent tracking I mostly use CookieAutoDelete [0] which only stores Cookies for sites that I have whitelisted after the tab is closed. It's really just a handful of sites I visit frequently and don't want to log in every time. Cookies aren't required for anything else. Also, not having a Google account comes in handy to prevent tracking by Google. My default search engine is DuckDuckGo. 0: https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/ https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelet...

rem1313 8y ago
I also find CookieAutoDelete invaluable, particularly in combination with "I don't care about cookies" extension which removes almost all of the cookie warning dialogs which you would get otherwise. Web is usable again :)
m_st 8y ago
Exact same setup here. Works great.
aembleton 8y ago
I just block them for everything except for first party sites using uMatrix. For some sites I need to allow google.com cookies otherwise I will keep getting recaptcha checks.
mard 8y ago
>to prevent tracking I mostly use CookieAutoDelete Removing cookies will not prevent anyone from tracking. Simple example: I once visited an online shop from browser profile in which I never logged into Facebook. Few hours later I switched to another browser profile, used exclusively for Facebook, and I got an ad on my timeline from said online shop, for the exact product I was looking for earlier in another browser profile. Facebook associated my two browsing personas without cookies, most likely using a combination of my browser's request headers and IP address. Not to mention that JavaScript (if enabled) provides additional and extremely detailed fingerprinting capabilities. In my experience, Google seems to have a better track record in terms of respecting cookies (or lack thereof) as the main carrier of online privacy management. But I think it's just an illusion. They're just obscuring it to not freak people out too much the way like Facebook does. The information is still there. They have it, from analytics, fonts, reCaptcha and all other means of their creep. To prevent tracking, you need to have a full control over information you send to the internet, including browser request headers, IP address, behavior patterns of web browser, and so on. Cookie management alone is just a fallacy and gives a false feeling of control over privacy. This is also why I consider those "privacy containers" broken by design. They just operate on cookies and don't contain anything besides cookies. I would even consider them harmful because of their misleading nature.
- gsnedders 8y ago
  AFAIK FB will do semi-targetted advertising based on IP alone if there's a very small number of users logged in from that IP.
  - mard 8y ago
    That happened behind my ISP's NAT in a densely populated area, so I don't think so, no.
    - gsnedders 8y ago
      I'd be surprised if it was the only thing they used, to be fair. But there is fairly obviously some IP-specificity going on.
    - tinus_hn 8y ago
      So you need to control your IP address but your example shows it doesn't matter?
  - Tsubasachan 8y ago
    On mobile your IP will change every few hours. Anyway the very idea that people are making money from me keeps me up at night so I use FF with a bunch of privacy aiding extensions. The war to fingerprint users is endless though. Ad tech is a billion dollar industry.
- amelius 8y ago
  > This is also why I consider those "privacy containers" broken by design. They just operate on cookies and don't contain anything besides cookies. I would even consider them harmful because of their misleading nature. Privacy containers could do more interesting things like: - Connect through a VPN/proxy, so IP address changes all the time. - Change browser characteristics (screen size, available fonts, user agent string, etc) to fool the fingerprint. I suppose that fingerprints are hashes, so you only have to corrupt one ingredient of the hash to make the fingerprint unusable. Tor browsers do stuff like this.
__pycache__ 8y ago
I have the same setup as you
rovr138 8y ago
> Also, not having a Google account comes in handy to prevent tracking by Google. My default search engine is DuckDuckGo. They still can track and target ads at you without an account. An account is not required for that.
- giancarlostoro 8y ago
  Indeed. Your unique fingerprint is your account. Even with Facebook. Being logged in just syncs your fingerprint better, possibly your multiple fingerprints.
Rodneyj 8y ago
The problem is that containers don't have unique local storage
camelCaseOfBeer 8y ago
DDG is the shit. I find the user experience of bangs an absolute pleasure and the engine is my primary interface to nearly every site I frequent. I care about privacy, but I have a Google account and enjoy their services as much as the next pleb, privacy isn't even the primary reason I use DDG. I feel like the combination of Firefox, DDG, VPN, and ublock affords privacy with no compromise.

by _jomo 8y ago

rem1313 8y ago

I also find CookieAutoDelete invaluable, particularly in combination with "I don't care about cookies" extension which removes almost all of the cookie warning dialogs which you would get otherwise. Web is usable again :)

m_st 8y ago

Exact same setup here. Works great.

aembleton 8y ago

I just block them for everything except for first party sites using uMatrix. For some sites I need to allow google.com cookies otherwise I will keep getting recaptcha checks.

mard 8y ago

>to prevent tracking I mostly use CookieAutoDelete Removing cookies will not prevent anyone from tracking. Simple example: I once visited an online shop from browser profile in which I never logged into Facebook. Few hours later I switched to another browser profile, used exclusively for Facebook, and I got an ad on my timeline from said online shop, for the exact product I was looking for earlier in another browser profile. Facebook associated my two browsing personas without cookies, most likely using a combination of my browser's request headers and IP address. Not to mention that JavaScript (if enabled) provides additional and extremely detailed fingerprinting capabilities. In my experience, Google seems to have a better track record in terms of respecting cookies (or lack thereof) as the main carrier of online privacy management. But I think it's just an illusion. They're just obscuring it to not freak people out too much the way like Facebook does. The information is still there. They have it, from analytics, fonts, reCaptcha and all other means of their creep. To prevent tracking, you need to have a full control over information you send to the internet, including browser request headers, IP address, behavior patterns of web browser, and so on. Cookie management alone is just a fallacy and gives a false feeling of control over privacy. This is also why I consider those "privacy containers" broken by design. They just operate on cookies and don't contain anything besides cookies. I would even consider them harmful because of their misleading nature.

gsnedders 8y ago
AFAIK FB will do semi-targetted advertising based on IP alone if there's a very small number of users logged in from that IP.
- mard 8y ago
  That happened behind my ISP's NAT in a densely populated area, so I don't think so, no.
  - gsnedders 8y ago
    I'd be surprised if it was the only thing they used, to be fair. But there is fairly obviously some IP-specificity going on.
  - tinus_hn 8y ago
    So you need to control your IP address but your example shows it doesn't matter?
- Tsubasachan 8y ago
  On mobile your IP will change every few hours. Anyway the very idea that people are making money from me keeps me up at night so I use FF with a bunch of privacy aiding extensions. The war to fingerprint users is endless though. Ad tech is a billion dollar industry.
amelius 8y ago
> This is also why I consider those "privacy containers" broken by design. They just operate on cookies and don't contain anything besides cookies. I would even consider them harmful because of their misleading nature. Privacy containers could do more interesting things like: - Connect through a VPN/proxy, so IP address changes all the time. - Change browser characteristics (screen size, available fonts, user agent string, etc) to fool the fingerprint. I suppose that fingerprints are hashes, so you only have to corrupt one ingredient of the hash to make the fingerprint unusable. Tor browsers do stuff like this.

__pycache__ 8y ago

I have the same setup as you

rovr138 8y ago

> Also, not having a Google account comes in handy to prevent tracking by Google. My default search engine is DuckDuckGo. They still can track and target ads at you without an account. An account is not required for that.

giancarlostoro 8y ago
Indeed. Your unique fingerprint is your account. Even with Facebook. Being logged in just syncs your fingerprint better, possibly your multiple fingerprints.

Rodneyj 8y ago

The problem is that containers don't have unique local storage

camelCaseOfBeer 8y ago

DDG is the shit. I find the user experience of bangs an absolute pleasure and the engine is my primary interface to nearly every site I frequent. I care about privacy, but I have a Google account and enjoy their services as much as the next pleb, privacy isn't even the primary reason I use DDG. I feel like the combination of Firefox, DDG, VPN, and ublock affords privacy with no compromise.