privacybadgerfirefox-legacy

The entries there are things that seemed especially important for sites' functionality; they are supposed to be there as a result of these criteria: https://github.com/EFForg/privacybadgerfirefox/blob/master/y... If you don't want something to be on the list, you can also override it in your own copy of Privacy Badger.

i stopped using EFF PrivacyBadger after i noticed it automatically adds cookie exceptions to Firefox which makes the SelfDestructingCookies addon useles. This 'bug' is stil not fixed at time of writing btw: https://github.com/EFForg/privacybadgerfirefox/issues/206#is... So i started using Disconnect instead...

Both in Chromium and Firefox, after installation, an embedded "firstRun.html" page is shown, which includes the following statement: [...] We send the Do Not Track header with each request, and our extension evaluates the likelihood that you are still being tracked. [...] [Still, I didn't attempt to verify this in code or by sniffing packets.] I, on the other hand, would be very interested to know if it is expected to work OK with NoScript (and NoScript with it)? [edit] From https://github.com/EFForg/privacybadgerfirefox/issues/73 and https://twitter.com/bcrypt/status/463750477075578880 I assume it is compatible with NoScript.

Tracking bug for this (in Firefox): https://github.com/EFForg/privacybadgerfirefox/issues/11

FYI, upgrading to 0.1.1 (released Friday) fixes the bug I mentioned. Subdomains of whitelisted sites are also whitelisted now. https://github.com/EFForg/privacybadgerfirefox/pull/63/files

To clarify, those cases where we block cookies but not requests entirely are the sites on this whitelist: https://www.eff.org/files/cookieblocklist.txt This pull request will also apply the whitelisting to subdomains of the domains on the whitelist: https://github.com/EFForg/privacybadgerfirefox/pull/63. Unfortunately blocking all those sites and making users whitelist them manually is a lot of work for most users. So we ship a whitelist.

UGH, you're right. Ok, let me explain this. We whitelisted google.com but it was not anticipated that, in the general case, we should really whitelist all subdomains in order not to break sites. Luckily this was a one-line patch: https://github.com/EFForg/privacybadgerfirefox/pull/63 (though in the future, it is better for the whitelist to have wildcards in the cases where it's necessary). Thanks for testing. Really helps a lot.

Yes, the alpha version (what we just launched) only works on third-party cookies, so the heuristic blocking algorithm doesn't do anything if you block 3rd party cookies entirely. We plan to add detection of other tracking methods (Flash cookies, local storage, fingerprinting, etc.) as time goes on. More info in the Firefox version's README: https://github.com/EFForg/privacybadgerfirefox/blob/eb1055c4...

Note that Privacy Badger uses a browser history-dependent algorithm for blocking - when you first install it, it doesn't block anything because it assumes that third-party trackers are innocent until proven guilty. When it sees you being tracked on 3+ first-party domains by a third party, it either blocks or cookieblocks the third party. I wrote up a basic description of the algorithm here: https://github.com/EFForg/privacybadgerfirefox/blob/master/R... So if you're testing Privacy Badger on a profile with no browsing history, it is bound to do worse than other extensions. You have to "prime" it with some browsing data before it's really effective.

Maybe it's a bug. FTA: This is an alpha release; we've been using it internally and don't think it's too buggy. But we're looking for intrepid users to try it out and let us know before we encourage millions of people to install it. If you find bugs, you can file them on github against either the Firefox or Chrome repos as appropriate. https://github.com/EFForg/privacybadgerfirefox/issues https://github.com/EFForg/privacybadgerchrome/issues