News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on No to Chrome. Parent comment

Re:No to Chrome by tyingq on Friday December 06, 2019 @06:36AM (#21720907)
Their apis only support declarative static blocking lists. No heuristics, right click to block, IAB ad size detection, etc. Similar to what chrome plans to do with manifest v3.

Advertisers are already figuring out how to get around that. CNAME cloacking, proxying with same domain, etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:No to Chrome by jakelazaroff on Friday December 06, 2019 @09:07AM (#21721831)
But on the other hand, it prevents malicious extensions from exfiltrating your browsing data.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:No to Chrome by Karunamon on Friday December 06, 2019 @09:27AM (#21722002)
A powered off computer is completely unhackable.

This idea of removing usability in the name of safety has gone way, way too far. It was crap when Mozilla did it, it's crap when Apple does it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:No to Chrome by jakelazaroff on Friday December 06, 2019 @12:02PM (#21723686)
Privacy is half the point of an ad blocker. I don’t think it’s ridiculous to enforce privacy constraints on something that ostensibly protects your privacy.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:No to Chrome by tyingq on Friday December 06, 2019 @02:17PM (#21725048)
Given that both Safari and Chrome will continue to allow extensions to inject arbitrary JavaScript into any web page, I don't buy the privacy angle.
[ Parent | on HN ]