• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    441 year ago

    Take any cybersecurity class and you’ll want to burn your tech in a dumpster. In most cases it’s security by obscurity from sheer numbers that hackers/sites don’t give a crap about you alone.

    Additionally, every site you have ever visited tracks your browser, IP, OS, location, and more. This AdBlock tracker is just observing that you have a plugin for ad blocking. That’s the least intrusion that YouTube does.

    In summary, there’s no need to be paranoid, but only because everything that can be stolen or observed already has been.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      17
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Also to add to what you said, switch away from (Google) Chrome everyone!!

      Imagine this message, but on every website, and it literally cannot be prevented, as the browser itself will sooner than later just straight up tell the sites “yo, your content has been modified, maybe block the user from viewing”, snitching on you.

      Come to think of it now, I wonder if this will affect poorly implemented sites using that feature to accidentally (or intentionally…) disable dark mode/reader extensions.

      And then, due to Chrome’s market share, if left unchanged, web developers/companies will at some point just not bother anymore. Imagine “this works best in Google Chrome, download now” you see for some web apps today, but even with the most basic text based site that can’t prevent you from using your Adblocker in e.g. Firefox or Safari.

    • Dark Arc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      151 year ago

      every site you have ever visited tracks your browser, IP, OS, location, and more.

      This is wrong to a degree of paranoia. That’s simply not true. Every site can observe it, some might even log it, but that’s a far cry for tracking it.

      In most cases it’s security by obscurity from sheer numbers that hackers/sites don’t give a crap about you alone.

      Also no, maybe in the 90s, but modern systems are (increasingly) designed to be secure by default.

      • Draconic NEO
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        There’s a great way I figured out to differentiate quickly between Cybersec Fud and legitimate discussions related to security. The usual main difference is that they are meant exclusively to sound scary there’s no room for constructive criticism, discussion about it, or finding solutions to the problems presented, and I’ve found that if you try to steer these discussions in said direction the person will usually try to shoot you down.

        Someone might say there are no solutions but see, here’s the thing, there are always solutions, you’re just not looking in the right places. After all lack of source code and sparse dubious documentation didn’t stop people from studying and disabling IntelME, and believe it or not while security Vulnerabilities are usually bad, some can be your best friend and the key to the solution. (Not saying it’s easy, I’m saying it’s possible, contrary to what most open source advocates say).

        Honestly if someone wants to have one of these discussions with me and they don’t want to discuss it constructively or think about possible solutions I don’t want to hear it because it’s not meant to promote intelligent discussion. It’s more like scary campfire stories but it’s portrayed in a way that seems constructive and intelligent. It’s also usually very patronizing since many times (not necessarily this specific commenter) the people making the statements tend to inadvertently talk down to you, this was my experience from hearing similar ones from colleagues.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      It is like people freaking out over giving out their phone number and SS number. I guarantee you that info is already out there in countless databases.