6 ms·

(a class="quickBrowserEscape ..." target="_blank" href="https://www.google.ca/") Need to leave site for your safety? Quick Escape $('.quickBrowserEscape').on(

(a class="quickBrowserEscape ..." target="_blank" href="https://www.google.ca/") Need to leave site for your safety? Quick Escape $('.quickBrowserEscape').on('click', function () { document.body.style.opacity = 0; document.title = 'New Tab'; window.open('https://www.weather.gc.ca/canada_e.html', '_blank'); window.location.replace($('.quickBrowserEscape').attr('href')); // removes current page session DOES NOT WORK IN IE return false; }); Would recommend picking random URLs from an array.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
shakna 2mo ago
This would also leave intact cookies, local/session storage, indexeddb, caches. All of which abusers do actually check, when controlling their victims.
- make3 2mo ago
  I'm sure 99% don't? Unless your abuser is a CS major
  - thomascountz 2mo ago
    There are tools which exist to make things such as this accessible to non-CS major perpetrators.
  - AndrewThrowaway 2mo ago
    I wonder if Hans Reiser would have checked...
  - shakna 2mo ago
    Have fun exploring the list of things we've caught abusers actually using. [0] Or don't. Reading and keeping your soul intact aren't compatible. I am 100% sure that some do, thanks to firsthand life. And any doing it, is enough to get people dead, even if 99% don't. And yes, CS majors can be abusers, too. [0] https://www.esafety.gov.au/key-topics/domestic-family-violence/online-safety-checklist https://www.esafety.gov.au/key-topics/domestic-family-violen...
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
  - latexr 2mo ago
    They do that and much worse. https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/09/15/346149979/smartphones-are-used-to-stalk-control-domestic-abuse-victims https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/09/15/34... It’s so prevalent it even has a name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalkerware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalkerware Don’t underestimate an abuser’s ability to find a way.
- otherme123 2mo ago
  A quick check shows that they don't store anything as cookies or any other browser storage. The thing that still works is the back button after the redirection to Google, and you can still un-close the tab with Ctr-Shf-T which pops the Google page with back history intact. They have "cache-control: max-age=0" which probably should be changed to "cache-control: no-store". Still, the back button has the history if the user clicked links. Improvements could be: - Recommend the usage of incognito mode. - Blank the page immediately with "document.body.innerHTML=''" before the page replacement, as the replacement alone can have a delay and the abuser could see a glimpse of the police page. Blanking is immediate.
  - jorams 2mo ago
    > Blank the page immediately with "document.body.innerHTML=''" before the page replacement That's what the "document.body.style.opacity = 0;" is for. Though I agree emptying out the body is probably better.
embedding-shape 2mo ago
Best would be if they took care to match the overall brightness of the page they redirect to. Currently they're going from a "not 100% bright website" to "very much 100% bright website" and the flash in people's faces will be relatively obvious, if the other person been trying to hide websites themselves. I've heard.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

shakna 2mo ago

This would also leave intact cookies, local/session storage, indexeddb, caches. All of which abusers do actually check, when controlling their victims.

make3 2mo ago
I'm sure 99% don't? Unless your abuser is a CS major
- thomascountz 2mo ago
  There are tools which exist to make things such as this accessible to non-CS major perpetrators.
- AndrewThrowaway 2mo ago
  I wonder if Hans Reiser would have checked...
- shakna 2mo ago
  Have fun exploring the list of things we've caught abusers actually using. [0] Or don't. Reading and keeping your soul intact aren't compatible. I am 100% sure that some do, thanks to firsthand life. And any doing it, is enough to get people dead, even if 99% don't. And yes, CS majors can be abusers, too. [0] https://www.esafety.gov.au/key-topics/domestic-family-violence/online-safety-checklist https://www.esafety.gov.au/key-topics/domestic-family-violen...
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
- latexr 2mo ago
  They do that and much worse. https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/09/15/346149979/smartphones-are-used-to-stalk-control-domestic-abuse-victims https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/09/15/34... It’s so prevalent it even has a name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalkerware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalkerware Don’t underestimate an abuser’s ability to find a way.
otherme123 2mo ago
A quick check shows that they don't store anything as cookies or any other browser storage. The thing that still works is the back button after the redirection to Google, and you can still un-close the tab with Ctr-Shf-T which pops the Google page with back history intact. They have "cache-control: max-age=0" which probably should be changed to "cache-control: no-store". Still, the back button has the history if the user clicked links. Improvements could be: - Recommend the usage of incognito mode. - Blank the page immediately with "document.body.innerHTML=''" before the page replacement, as the replacement alone can have a delay and the abuser could see a glimpse of the police page. Blanking is immediate.
- jorams 2mo ago
  > Blank the page immediately with "document.body.innerHTML=''" before the page replacement That's what the "document.body.style.opacity = 0;" is for. Though I agree emptying out the body is probably better.

embedding-shape 2mo ago

Best would be if they took care to match the overall brightness of the page they redirect to. Currently they're going from a "not 100% bright website" to "very much 100% bright website" and the flash in people's faces will be relatively obvious, if the other person been trying to hide websites themselves. I've heard.