Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?

In article op.0ayjh8fjwdg98l@glass, Commander Kinsey
wrote:


Commander Kinsey wrote:
Bull****. Absolute utter bull****. There is no way you can tell if an
ad is displayed on my monitor, or if a white box is displayed on my
monitor. You'd need a camera in my house to do that.

Screenshots do not need a camera in your house. You are posting on a
topic you know nothing about. (And we have other ways to tell if an ad
is displayed.)

Taking a screenshot of someone's computer is hacking into it and highly
illegal. And you can't do it without installing a virus.

false on both.

And you simply can't tell if it's displayed. If the browser downloads it
from you, you can't tell whether those pixels end up on my screen or in the
bin where they belong.

false.

And if you're an ad creator, you're a ****. Nobody likes you, nobody
wants your product, so **** off and die.

true.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote

| I don't want to have to set preferences for every page. I just want to
browse the internet and not see ads. How can it be that hard to write
something to just hide them?
|

I explained below why it's hard. You have to identify
which things are ads. They don't come named as ads.

|
| I did used to use a hosts file. But a decently designed page can very
easily host the ads on the same server as the page. Then your hosts file
can't work.
|

Actually, no. That's almost non-existent. That's why I never
see ads despite having no ad blocker. As I explained, virtually
all ads are put on the page by the ad server company. People
don't host ads anymore. They sign up with Google, then put
some code on their page to let Google put ads there when the
page loads. The website owner has no idea what the ad even
looks like. Further, there are a relatively small number of ad
companies. So a small HOSTS file does the trick.

| When I look at other people using browsers I see webpages
| with all sorts of crap popping up, sliding across, transforming...
| it drives me crazy. Maybe you don't mind that.
|
| What? I just said "I don't get any unwanted popups, ever". When any page
wants to open something in a new window or tab, I'm asked first. I can
click no, yes, never, or always.
|

Then you're unusual. Anyone I see who allows javascript
has all sorts of things moving around on typical webpages.
I'm not just talking about popups. All kinds of things. Things
that change when the mouse moves over them. Things that
slide in from the side. Videos. Slideshows. You enable script
and yet you see nothing move on webpages? I find that
hard to believe.


| But in many cases I now disable CSS, anyway. A typical
| Washpo article is designed to be read on a phone, with triple
| spaced fonts at 20-24px height. It's so big it's unreadable.
| So if I actually want to read anarticle I switch to no CSS and
| see it as my default choice: 13px verdana.
|
| ARGH! Phones are for making calls and texting. You can't view the
internet on something that small. Even a tablet is virtually unusable.
|

I'd agree. But phones have become the norm. So commercial
sites are catering to them, with the result that many pages look
like a childrens' book.


| And there are some sites in between. For instance, if I find
| an item at Home Depot via DDG, that page works fine. But
| if I go to homedepot.com and search it's completely broken.
|
| If you can't even use homedepot, I think you're being over the top with
your restrictive browsering.
|

People have different priorities. For both privacy and as a matter
of principle, I thwart surveillance. Also, virtually all security risks
online are due to script. It is more trouble to disable it, but to
me it's the best option.

| I do internet banking, who wants to go to the branch or bother waiting in
line on the phone?
|
| I buy everything (except food) on Ebay.
|

Then you're a person who has no choice but to live with
constant surveilance and online security risks. I don't
mind going to the bank and seeing other humans. I buy
anything I can in a local store. But aside from food I really
don't buy very much.

| Sounds far too complicated. I just want to install an extension an
occasionally click "allow".
|

Yes. That's what everyone wants. All goodies and no hassle.
There's an old joke among programmers that the perfect
business program has one button and no directions. Because
people can't be bothered to think about what they're doing.
So all I can suggest is that you search for an ad-hiding
extension for Chrome. Failing that the next best thing would
be to complain some more.

| The irony is that I don't mind honest ads with no spyware.
| If they want to put an ad on their webpages I'll see it.
|
| That's where we differ. I detest ALL advertising. It's a distraction. I
go to a page to read an article not to buy something. I would never ever
buy anything from an ad. If I wanted that product, I would have be looking
for it. Same goes for people who come to my door to sell me double glazing.
If I'd wanted it, I would have phoned a few companies for a quote. Why
would anyone buy something just because someone suggested it?
|

We do it all the time. You go to the store and buy Coke or
Pepsi because you don't recognize the brand that's not on
TV. You buy a Chevy because you think of yourself as a cowboy,
or you buy a Saab because you think you're intelligent, or
you buy a Subaru because you're a Vermonter. Those companies
told you to think that way. If it didn't work thy wouldn't
be spending all that money. If you believe you think for yourself
then you're probably even more of a sucker for ads than the rest
of us, because then when you have a hankering for a Saab or
a Pepsi you think it was your idea and you trust the impulse.

"Apd" wrote

|
| Better get in quick. See the main page:
| https://legacycollector.org/
| "This archive will be shut down in December 2019"
|

Yikes. Thanks. And I just found out about it!
I'd be happy to see any posts in the next couple
of weeks from anyone who checks out these extensions
and recommends anything. I think I do ssome testing
myself.

On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 22:44:13 -0000, Mayayana wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote

| I don't want to have to set preferences for every page. I just want to
browse the internet and not see ads. How can it be that hard to write
something to just hide them?
|

I explained below why it's hard. You have to identify
which things are ads. They don't come named as ads.

This has already been done. (Or already been did as they say in Glasgow). My current adblocker can identify ads 99% of the time. But it doesn't download them, so it can be detected. Surely very simple to change the program to let it download them but not display them.

| I did used to use a hosts file. But a decently designed page can very
easily host the ads on the same server as the page. Then your hosts file
can't work.

Actually, no. That's almost non-existent. That's why I never
see ads despite having no ad blocker. As I explained, virtually
all ads are put on the page by the ad server company. People
don't host ads anymore. They sign up with Google, then put
some code on their page to let Google put ads there when the
page loads. The website owner has no idea what the ad even
looks like. Further, there are a relatively small number of ad
companies. So a small HOSTS file does the trick.

But you still get the same problem as me - you can be detected by the page as not having downloaded the ads.

| When I look at other people using browsers I see webpages
| with all sorts of crap popping up, sliding across, transforming...
| it drives me crazy. Maybe you don't mind that.
|
| What? I just said "I don't get any unwanted popups, ever". When any page
wants to open something in a new window or tab, I'm asked first. I can
click no, yes, never, or always.

Then you're unusual. Anyone I see who allows javascript
has all sorts of things moving around on typical webpages.
I'm not just talking about popups. All kinds of things. Things
that change when the mouse moves over them. Things that
slide in from the side. Videos. Slideshows. You enable script
and yet you see nothing move on webpages? I find that
hard to believe.

The only two things that have ever annoyed me on webpages a
1) Opening another tab or window
2) An advert
Neither of those happen.

| But in many cases I now disable CSS, anyway. A typical
| Washpo article is designed to be read on a phone, with triple
| spaced fonts at 20-24px height. It's so big it's unreadable.
| So if I actually want to read anarticle I switch to no CSS and
| see it as my default choice: 13px verdana.
|
| ARGH! Phones are for making calls and texting. You can't view the
internet on something that small. Even a tablet is virtually unusable.

I'd agree. But phones have become the norm. So commercial
sites are catering to them, with the result that many pages look
like a childrens' book.

I've never seen that at all. Pages either aren't made for phones, or they detect the OS you're using, if it's a phone OS, they serve a smaller page.

| And there are some sites in between. For instance, if I find
| an item at Home Depot via DDG, that page works fine. But
| if I go to homedepot.com and search it's completely broken.
|
| If you can't even use homedepot, I think you're being over the top with
your restrictive browsering.

People have different priorities. For both privacy and as a matter
of principle, I thwart surveillance. Also, virtually all security risks
online are due to script. It is more trouble to disable it, but to
me it's the best option.

I agree with you about surveillance, but I've given up, there's so much of it it's not worth the effort to stop it. Now government surveillance, that should definitely be avoided, they're the dangerous ones, who cares about a company?

| I do internet banking, who wants to go to the branch or bother waiting in
line on the phone?
|
| I buy everything (except food) on Ebay.

Then you're a person who has no choice but to live with
constant surveilance and online security risks.

What risks are those?

I don't
mind going to the bank and seeing other humans.

Seeing them is fine, waiting in a queue is not.

I buy
anything I can in a local store. But aside from food I really
don't buy very much.

When you need a drill bit, a battery charger, a shirt, a tin of paint, etc, where do you go?

| Sounds far too complicated. I just want to install an extension an
occasionally click "allow".

Yes. That's what everyone wants. All goodies and no hassle.
There's an old joke among programmers that the perfect
business program has one button and no directions. Because
people can't be bothered to think about what they're doing.
So all I can suggest is that you search for an ad-hiding
extension for Chrome. Failing that the next best thing would
be to complain some more.

Well if programmers had some common sense....

| The irony is that I don't mind honest ads with no spyware.
| If they want to put an ad on their webpages I'll see it.
|
| That's where we differ. I detest ALL advertising. It's a distraction. I
go to a page to read an article not to buy something. I would never ever
buy anything from an ad. If I wanted that product, I would have be looking
for it. Same goes for people who come to my door to sell me double glazing.
If I'd wanted it, I would have phoned a few companies for a quote. Why
would anyone buy something just because someone suggested it?

We do it all the time. You go to the store and buy Coke or
Pepsi because you don't recognize the brand that's not on
TV.

Bull****. I buy the one that's cheapest. Or if I want something reliable, like a power tool, I look up reviews, I never ever go by advertising, because all adverts are lies.

Didn't say anything about illegal, just personal opinion.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote

| I explained below why it's hard. You have to identify
| which things are ads. They don't come named as ads.
|
| This has already been done. (Or already been did as they say in Glasgow).
My current adblocker can identify ads 99% of the time. But it doesn't
download them, so it can be detected. Surely very simple to change the
program to let it download them but not display them.
|
Yes. It's probably identifying them by source domain.
That's what I was talking about before. You can do it
but you'll need a regularly updating list. Then you need
to write a different program that rewrites the webpage
rather than just blocking the ad. The main problem
is that you might be the only person who actually wants
to download them.


| Further, there are a relatively small number of ad
| companies. So a small HOSTS file does the trick.
|
| But you still get the same problem as me - you can be detected by the page
as not having downloaded the ads.
|
Speak for yourself. I just don't see ads. Nor have I
ever seen a website asking me to turn off my ad
blocker. Since I block script there's no way for the
website to know anything except which of their files
I downloaded. Even with that they don't know I'm not
seeing ads because the ads are not coming from their
domain. All of this "intelligence" coming from the
website requires script. Without it they know very little.
With it they can track your mouse movements and find
out all sorts of info about your browser and system.
You can see some of that if you go to panopticon
with script disabled.

| I agree with you about surveillance, but I've given up, there's so much of
it it's not worth the effort to stop it. Now government surveillance, that
should definitely be avoided, they're the dangerous ones, who cares about a
company?
|
The companies are sharing with the gov't. Look
up PRISM. It's also an issue of precedent.There have already
been problems with TVs spying on people. Amazon bought
Ring, makers of home surveillance cameras, and are cooperating
wioth police depts. They're even making them sign contracts
saying that the police can't make public statements about
Ring that are not approved by Amazon. It's a widespread
effort to create a paranoid police state with suburbanites
all sharing their camera data... and the whole thing owned
by Amazon. This has gone way beyond a website guessing
that you want to buy golf clubs.

There need to be laws put
in place to reinforce common decency. The way it stands
now, these companies are establishing a legal precedent,
thanks to your inaction, to claim that spying is normal and
you have no right to complain. They're calling it
"surveillance capitalism". The theory is that your private
data is a business resource. But it's not at all hopeless.
A man named Mactaggert has almost single-handedly got
privacy laws passed in California.

| Then you're a person who has no choice but to live with
| constant surveilance and online security risks.
|
| What risks are those?
|
Virtually all security risks require javascript. So the risks
are any browser attack that can be carried out online.
Most of those, these days, are 0-day. The Web is simply
not safe.

| I buy
| anything I can in a local store. But aside from food I really
| don't buy very much.
|
| When you need a drill bit, a battery charger, a shirt, a tin of paint,
etc, where do you go?
|

Home Depot, Home Depot, Kohls, Sherwin Williams or the local
lumber yard that sells Benj Moore. But I live near a big city, so
it's easy for me.

| We do it all the time. You go to the store and buy Coke or
| Pepsi because you don't recognize the brand that's not on
| TV.
|
| Bull****. I buy the one that's cheapest. Or if I want something
reliable, like a power tool, I look up reviews, I never ever go by
advertising, because all adverts are lies.
|

See, they've already convinced you that you can
think for yourself.

In reply to "Mayayana" who wrote the following:

"Apd" wrote

|
| Better get in quick. See the main page:
| https://legacycollector.org/
| "This archive will be shut down in December 2019"
|

Yikes. Thanks. And I just found out about it!
I'd be happy to see any posts in the next couple
of weeks from anyone who checks out these extensions
and recommends anything. I think I do ssome testing
myself.

You could host the archive at your site. Just saying...



--
----------------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/
------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


I do not want to block all adds. Absolutely not!

why not? they needlessly slow things down and track you.

Sjouke Burry wrote:
On 08.11.19 22:15, CoMmAnDoTrOn wrote:

If you believe the ads are bad, you should not visit the web site.
You have no rights to the web site content without the ads.

cut

Pardon me, but I dont remember signing a contract with any
website (not counting my provider website(s)).
What law are you quoting?


1. Copyright law

The copyright owner can reserve all rights to his/her work under
copyright law. You have admitted that you do not have a contract which
might grant you any rights to the work.
Be aware that your country is a signatory to the Universal Copyright
Convention, and works are automatically granted copyright protection.


2. Property rights

The owner of the web site has the right to decide who can or can not
enter his property. The web site is the property of the web site owner.
You have admitted that you do not have a contract which might give you
right of access to the web site owner's property.

Mayayana wrote:
"CoMmAnDoTrOn" wrote

| You have no rights to the web site content without the ads.
|

Actually it's the other way around. If I visit acme.com I
have a right to the files because Acme have put them
online, free for the taking.


In this discussion thread, the web site content is *not* *free* for
the taking. The content is paid for (by ads), and is only available
to those whose access to the content has been paid for (paid for by
displaying the ads).

FYI the majority of web sites are not "files" but generated content.

Suppose someone in your city takes a taxi ride, paid for by Mr. A. D.
Vertissement. That does not make taxi rides "free for the taking" in
your city, without anyone paying the taxi fare. The same principle
applies to web site content.


However, Acme does not have
a right to hijack my browser and send it to Google/Doubleclick.


If you download a "file" which is free for the taking, you accept
whatever is in that "file" -- including script and links to Google /
Doubleclick. You have no contract with the web site to say what
should be in that "file". If you do not want it, do not download it.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 21:20:57 -0000, CoMmAnDoTrOn
wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:

Bull****. Absolute utter bull****. There is no way you can tell if an
ad is displayed on my monitor, or if a white box is displayed on my
monitor. You'd need a camera in my house to do that.

Screenshots do not need a camera in your house. You are posting on a
topic you know nothing about. (And we have other ways to tell if an ad
is displayed.)

Taking a screenshot of someone's computer is hacking into it and highly
illegal. And you can't do it without installing a virus.


We can take the screenshot with your web browser. OMG, your web browser
must be a virus! Your computer is like, totally compromised!

The only sure way for you to get rid of a virus is to reformat and
reinstall. I hope you have a backup from before any "virus" (web
browser) was installed on your computer. :-D


And you simply can't tell if it's displayed. If the browser downloads
it from you, you can't tell whether those pixels end up on my screen or
in the bin where they belong.


Yes we can. A screenshot will show whether the pixels end up on your
screen. You are posting on a topic you know nothing about.


And if you're an ad creator, you're a ****. Nobody likes you, nobody
wants your product, so **** off and die.


The web site wants the ads, so it can make enough money to pay its
bills. If the web site cannot pay its bills then it has to close.

You want the web site, or else you would not visit it. If the ads went
away the web site would have to close. You are too tightwad to pay the
web site's bills. The money to pay the bills has to come from elsewhere.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.


FYI we at Leet Website Command are not the ad creators.

On 09/11/2019 12:25, CoMmAnDoTrOn wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 21:20:57 -0000, CoMmAnDoTrOn
wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:

Bull****. Absolute utter bull****. There is no way you can tell if an
ad is displayed on my monitor, or if a white box is displayed on my
monitor. You'd need a camera in my house to do that.

Screenshots do not need a camera in your house. You are posting on a
topic you know nothing about. (And we have other ways to tell if an ad
is displayed.)

Taking a screenshot of someone's computer is hacking into it and highly
illegal. And you can't do it without installing a virus.


We can take the screenshot with your web browser. OMG, your web browser
must be a virus! Your computer is like, totally compromised!

The only sure way for you to get rid of a virus is to reformat and
reinstall. I hope you have a backup from before any "virus" (web
browser) was installed on your computer. :-D


And you simply can't tell if it's displayed. If the browser downloads
it from you, you can't tell whether those pixels end up on my screen or
in the bin where they belong.


Yes we can. A screenshot will show whether the pixels end up on your
screen. You are posting on a topic you know nothing about.


And if you're an ad creator, you're a ****. Nobody likes you, nobody
wants your product, so **** off and die.


The web site wants the ads, so it can make enough money to pay its
bills. If the web site cannot pay its bills then it has to close.

You want the web site, or else you would not visit it. If the ads went
away the web site would have to close. You are too tightwad to pay the
web site's bills. The money to pay the bills has to come from elsewhere.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.


FYI we at Leet Website Command are not the ad creators.


Be wary of the which sites you visit!

https://i.imgur.com/JCa39b8.jpg

Nobody in the UK using BT as their ISP can visit the site (without a
VPN) so there must surely be SOMETHING untoward happening there!

"me" wrote

| You could host the archive at your site. Just saying...
|

Yes. As could any of us, I suppose, if we want to
pay for the traffic. But I don't want to steal your idea.
You go ahead.

Actually, I don't know what the legal implications
would be of hosting extensions. Would each author
need to provide a letter of permission? And why is
the current host being threatened? His front page
implies that he hasn't actually dealt with legal and
permission issues.

It's a sad state that things have come to when there's
only one "open" browser maker, they make hundreds of
millions of dollars a year from sleazeballs like Google, and
despite all that money they won't host extensions for
older browser versions, apparently out of spite. Though
I expect they'd claim it's in the interest of "optimal security".

~BD~ The Despicable Demented Stalker from Devon wrote:

Be wary of the which sites you visit!

https://i.imgur.com/JCa39b8.jpg

Nobody in the UK using BT as their ISP can visit the site (without a
VPN)
so there must surely be SOMETHING untoward happening there!

You just can't stop stalking. You should be hanged at sunrise.

--
-bts

On 08/11/2019 17.35, Mayayana wrote:
"Carlos E.R." wrote

| The but is that the image of a map can not resize or move. On the other
| hand, I'm sure there is legalesse that prohibit taking a photo of a
| google map and posting it.
|

Both true, but not real problems. If I've got
Bob's Furniture Store I can draw a map of major
cross streets. My drawn map can easily bbe more
useful than Google's. Or I can get a free-to-use map.
People just use a Google link because it's free and
they can't be bothered to deal with it.

Sure, you can use openstreetmap instead.


--
Cheers, Carlos.