ghostwords

Yep, they just updated when Chrome Web Store stops accepting MV2 updates to January 2024: https://github.com/GoogleChrome/developer.chrome.com/pull/38...

Does having the Featured badge actually change anything meaningfully for your extension?

Hi, Privacy Badger dev here.

Total Cookie Protection helps by keeping all third-party cookies isolated to the site they were set on. This means tracker domains will no longer get their cookie identifiers persisted across different sites.

However, tracking isn't limited to cookies. If unblocked, trackers can still use techniques like browser fingerprinting and cookie syncing. They could also just track you via your IP address, or, most likely, via some combination of different techniques.

Trackers can also collect sensitive information such as your email address, or even become vectors for delivering malware.

Outside of privacy/security concerns, unblocked trackers can slow down websites and waste your bandwidth.

To learn about how Privacy Badger works, visit https://privacybadger.org/#faq

I use Privacy Badger alone because (A) it's good enough, and (B) I want direct experience of what needs to get better. I previously used uMatrix (which is now advanced mode uBlock Origin as I understand it). I use AdGuard on iOS.

We've been trying to communicate that nothing essential changed, Privacy Badger still learns automatically, but we clearly have a ways to go before this becomes generally understood.

It may be that Privacy Badger is more likely to break the Web than manual list-based blockers, just due to the nature of automated learning.

Regarding having to see dangerous content multiple times:

- Privacy Badger gets remote learning at this point from Badger Sett, so most common trackers should be accounted for.

- Privacy Badger isn't so much a security tool as a privacy tool. Yes, blocking trackers is good for security, but it's not the primary objective. The primary objective is to stop non-consensual pervasive tracking. In this light, having to see tracking a few times before deciding to block it is a reasonable approach.

I'm not sure what you are asking. What am I recommending?

All extensions that modify page state are fingerprintable. Privacy Badger's local learning creates the possibility of additional fingerprinting. As discussed in the blog post you linked to, we decided that we can deliver most of the benefits of automatic learning without local learning. We further believe that local learning can offer benefits that outweigh the risk of additional fingerprinting, which is why we kept the ability to re-enable this feature at the user's discretion. Does this answer your question?

Hi, Privacy Badger dev here. If you're happy with your setup, no need to install anything else.

For reasons you might want to use Privacy Badger, see the following links:

- https://privacybadger.org/#How-is-Privacy-Badger-different-f...

- https://privacybadger.org/#Is-Privacy-Badger-compatible-with...

Definitely, we have been working on generating insights from comparisons to other content blockers as part of Badger Sett scans.

There are a few academic studies that note that algorithmic and manual approaches to tracker blocking tend to compliment each other, for example:

https://kevin.borgolte.me/files/pdf/www2020-privacy-extensio...

Hi, Privacy Badger dev here.

- https://privacybadger.org/#How-is-Privacy-Badger-different-f...

- https://privacybadger.org/#Is-Privacy-Badger-compatible-with...

By the way, I like both uBlock Origin and AdGuard!

Hi, Privacy Badger dev here. The short answer is, it *shouldn't*. Longer answer here: https://privacybadger.org/#Does-Privacy-Badger-contain-a-lis...

Hi, Privacy Badger dev here. I hear you, and we're working on breaking fewer sites while blocking more trackers. For what it's worth, Privacy Badger now is better at both things than it was years ago, and it will be better yet next year.

Hi, Privacy Badger dev here.

While there is likely to be overlap between the various advertising/tracker lists and Privacy Badger, regardless of whether you enable learning locally, Privacy Badger can automatically discover new trackers that list-based blockers don’t know about.

Besides automatic tracker blocking, Privacy Badger comes with privacy features like click-to-activate replacements for potentially useful trackers (video players, comments sections like Disqus, etc.), and link cleaning on Facebook and Google.

Privacy Badger is also a political tool. By using Privacy Badger, you support the Electronic Frontier Foundation [1]. Privacy Badger sends the Global Privacy Control [2] signal to opt you out of data sharing and selling, and the Do Not Track [3] signal to tell companies not to track you. If trackers ignore your wishes, Privacy Badger will learn to block them. The idea isn't to block all advertising but rather to promote a better Web.

[1] https://www.eff.org/ [2] https://globalprivacycontrol.org/ [3] https://www.eff.org/issues/do-not-track

Hi, Privacy Badger dev here. Here are a couple of links to answers to start:

- https://privacybadger.org/#Is-Privacy-Badger-compatible-with...

- https://github.com/EFForg/privacybadger/discussions/2786#dis...

Remember the Chrome "puzzle piece" extensions menu post where Google announced hiding extension icons inside their new menu by default?

https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/chromium-extensio...

Almost universally negative feedback and ... "Thank you for the feedback", we're not changing anything.

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=111474...

>Ideally, I'd like to see MV3 continue supporting the persistent context use case as well as maintaining webRequest blocking support.

Same, which is why I engage with browser representatives in the W3C WebExtensions Community Group.

Unfortunately, the status quo is grim with Firefox seemingly uninterested in standing up to Chrome and citing compatibility as the main reason for following Chrome into mandatory Service Workers.

>idiomatic

>less resources

Are you an extension developer? Here is a list of issues that extension developers have with requiring Service Workers:

https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/labels/topic%3A%20servi...

Just take a look at this work-in-progress MV3 version of a fairly popular webpage-saver extension called SingleFile:

https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/SingleFile-Lite#readme

From a now year-old EFF blog post [1] regarding Chrome extensions and the Google Manifest V3 "proposal":

The “Report Abuse” link doesn't seem to produce results, obfuscated code doesn't seem to trigger red flags, and no one responds to user reviews.

[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/07/googles-plans-chrome-e...

Check out Cliqz Autoconsent: https://github.com/cliqz-oss/autoconsent

This is a library of rules for navigating through common consent popups on the web. These rules can be run in a Firefox webextension, or in a puppeteer orchestrated headless browser. Using these rules, opt-in and opt-out options can be selected automatically, without requiring user-input.

This library is primarily used by the cliqz browser in order to automate user-consent, and make a cleaner browsing experience. There is also a standalone addon that can be installed in Firefox.

>Recent studies have shown that when advertising is made less relevant by removing cookies, funding for publishers falls by 52% on average

The source for this seems to be a Google Ad Manager "study" (a paragraph in the middle of https://www.blog.google/products/ads/next-steps-transparency...).

Was this an apples-to-apples comparison, i.e. did they serve relevant contextual ads when they turned off cookies?

Other studies disagree:

>We find that when a user’s cookie is available publisher’s revenue increases by only about 4%

-- Online Tracking and Publishers’ Revenues: An Empirical Analysis (https://weis2019.econinfosec.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/...)

Edit:

>After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges in Europe — and kept growing ad revenue

-- https://digiday.com/media/gumgumtest-new-york-times-gdpr-cut...

I suggest that the gulf between perfect foolproof detection and what Google actually does now is vast. They can start by banning remote code, and follow up by setting up automated flagging with manual review for popular extensions to start with. Just getting clarification from developers regarding anything suspicious would be great.

Just because something is abusable doesn't mean it should be removed. The argument we are making is that the trafeoff proposed by Manifest V3 is bad. There are clear actions Google could have taken a long time ago to protect Chrome users. Banning remote code is one of them. Responding to abuse reports is another. These would directly mitigate abuse in Chrome Web Store. Banning chrome.webRequest is not one of these clear actions.

Hi, coauthor here. Our argument is not that extensions can't abuse chrome.webRequest. What exactly is dishonest here?

Agreed, I wish you didn't have to deal with JavaScript's quirks (or script tags even).

Accessibility matters! The fewer barriers to entry, the fewer interested people your project will turn away.

There are lessons there for improving live editing environments (whether Khan Academy's, or p5.js', or ...), but also a call to rethink teaching (programming) in general.

Processing is clearly on the right track given all the wonderful things that have already been made with it ... consider how many more people it could reach, how much more wonder could exist, if Processing were to move beyond `ellipse(50, 50, 80, 80)` (for example).

Have you guys seen Bret Victor's criticism of Processing in http://worrydream.com/LearnableProgramming/?

I ended up blacklisting the built-in card on my ThinkPad X220 because it was too flaky to rely on:

  $ cat /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist-local.conf
  blacklist rtl8192ce

I use a USB adapter instead (SMCWUSB-N2), which, besides providing wireless internet, is a fine reminder to just get a MacBook next time.

General-purpose Chrome extension enumeration[1] should have been fixed some time ago, maybe here: http://crbug.com/45876

There are still issues with fingerprinting based on specific attributes of a particular extension (for example: [2]), however.

1: http://www.skeletonscribe.net/2011/07/sparse-bruteforce-addo...

2: http://blog.securitee.org/?p=277

Hi, Chameleon dev here. "Browser fingerprinting protection for everybody" is Chameleon's mission statement, not a description of present state (which is dev-only, not even beta software). Sorry for the confusion.