Filters Unsuitable For EasyList Or EasyPrivacy

Discussion of EasyList subscription policy

Moderator: EasyList authors

Post Reply
Michael
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 4126
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:08 pm
Reputation: 0

Filters Unsuitable For EasyList Or EasyPrivacy

Post by Michael » Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:59 pm

In accordance with this topic I have started to compile a list of filters that are simply unsuitable for EasyList or EasyPrivacy as they cause too many false positives. A post with this content will later be set as a sticky in the public forums. Thus far I have collected the following filters:

Code: Select all

/cmdatatagutils.js
/coremetrics
/eluminate.js
/foresee/foresee
google-analytics.com
google.com/jsapi
/ga.js
/hbx.js
/oas_
/omniture
/s_code
/h_code
/__utm.js
/urchin.js
/webtrends
In addition, adult websites are not explicitly dealt with in EasyList or EasyPrivacy. If you wish to block adverts on such sites, try Fanboy's Adult/Dating subscription.


If anyone has more submissions I would be grateful for any suggestions. I will update this post as appropriate.
Last edited by Michael on Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

MonztA
EasyList Author
EasyList Author
Posts: 8114
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:19 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Germany

Post by MonztA » Sat Nov 14, 2009 10:11 pm

Anyone knows if google-analytics.com/siteopt.js (e.g.) also breaks sites?

Michael
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 4126
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:08 pm
Reputation: 0

Post by Michael » Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:40 pm

I've just added

Code: Select all

google.com/jsapi
from here

User avatar
Erunno
Emeritus Contributor
Emeritus Contributor
Posts: 1866
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:21 pm
Reputation: 0

Post by Erunno » Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:55 pm

There are still two filters which contain the webtrends substring and some which could be related to webtrends (e.g. /analytics/wt.js). Are these oversights or were they left in EP on purpose?
Zombie Contributor

Michael
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 4126
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:08 pm
Reputation: 0

Post by Michael » Sun Nov 15, 2009 2:21 pm

Presumably there have been no false positives reported as a result of those filters, and therefore they remain. It is only intended that this list will act as a notice advising that we do not want any more scripts in that category.

Michael
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 4126
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:08 pm
Reputation: 0

Post by Michael » Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:21 am

Update: I've just added a note about adult websites.

Ares2
Emeritus Contributor
Emeritus Contributor
Posts: 4572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:49 pm
Reputation: 0

Post by Ares2 » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:39 pm

google.com/jsapi
probably isn't tracking at all, so I don't think it belongs to that list. Also I only found foresee here: http://forums.lanik.us/viewtopic.php?t=4685 but as the topic is yet unanswered, I don't know how this one got into the list.

Here's the sticky: http://forums.lanik.us/viewtopic.php?t=5222

Michael
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 4126
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:08 pm
Reputation: 0

Post by Michael » Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:02 pm

At a guess, foresee was probably just one of several filters I dumped in the topic because they were in my personal filters, although I am sure that I saw something about it negatively impacting on one website.

I included google.com/jsapi just for the sake of completion as I understood the task was simply listing filters that would not be suitable regardless of the subject matter.

Finally, I don't know how I forgot to mention that EasyList is for English languages websites only. Talk about missing the obvious...

User avatar
Erunno
Emeritus Contributor
Emeritus Contributor
Posts: 1866
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:21 pm
Reputation: 0

Post by Erunno » Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:03 pm

For google-analytics, there is a way to block it and still don't break any site, see https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic ... 886#p27886
Actually, even with the GM script image upload on http://imageshack.us/ does not work as long as GA is blocked.
Zombie Contributor

Ares2
Emeritus Contributor
Emeritus Contributor
Posts: 4572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:49 pm
Reputation: 0

Post by Ares2 » Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:49 pm

Erunno wrote:Actually, even with the GM script image upload on http://imageshack.us/ does not work as long as GA is blocked.
Hmm, confirmed.

Code: Select all

onclick="pageTracker._trackEvent('home-click','old-homepage-click-upload-btn'); uploadstart();"
I guess our script has to be modified so to "work with" _trackEvent too, but I have NO idea how to do that. ;-)

User avatar
Erunno
Emeritus Contributor
Emeritus Contributor
Posts: 1866
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:21 pm
Reputation: 0

Post by Erunno » Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:06 pm

I'd like to propose the following addition to the sticky:
About Google Analytics and the other unblocked scripts:

Google Analytics (from here on abbreviated as GA) is likely the most used tracking software on the Internet right now and the lack of a filter for blocking the google-analytics.com domain has caused some concern among users of EasyPrivacy in the past. To understand what impact the decision to refrain from blocking GA directly has on Internet privacy, the following circumstances have to be taken into account:

1.) GA does not track you across domains. Each site creates a different unique ID to recognize your Firefox installation.
2.) GA uses first party cookies for tracking. Since all major browsers forbid that domain "foo" has access to cookies from domain "bar" for security reasons GA has to use a trick to transmit the information stored in the cookies of domain "foo" to google-analytics.com for further processing. The Google-provided script on domain "foo" tries to load a small image (called __utm.gif) from Google servers and attaches all relevant information (your user ID, session ID, etc.) as parameters to the image (the part after the '?' character).

EasyPrivacy does block __utm.gif and therefore also the information that is transmitted alongside it. Your browser may store GA cookies but without the possibility to load __utm.gif your presence is still hidden from GA.

The other unblocked scripts are also "first party" tracking scripts. They are able to monitor your activity on domain "foo" but not on domain "bar". The privacy leak therefore is manageable.
Any additions? Corrections? I've read that it *is* possible to track someone across domains with GA with some kind of cross authentication but I left out on purpose as this is not a problem on the same scale as, for instance, being tracked by DoubleClick across the Internet which does not require any kind special provisions.
Last edited by Erunno on Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:25 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Zombie Contributor

Michael
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 4126
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:08 pm
Reputation: 0

Post by Michael » Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:17 pm

Looks good Erunno; I'm sure that it will help many people understand our stand on Google Analytics. My only minor suggestion would be to put the names of filters in bold to differentiate them from the rest of the text.

[EDIT]
Also, there's a space missing:
Erunno wrote:They areable to monitor...

User avatar
Erunno
Emeritus Contributor
Emeritus Contributor
Posts: 1866
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:21 pm
Reputation: 0

Post by Erunno » Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:41 pm

Michael wrote:filters in bold
What filters? The subscription name (i.e. EasyPrivacy)? __utm.gif and google-analytics.com?
Zombie Contributor

Michael
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 4126
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:08 pm
Reputation: 0

Post by Michael » Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:48 pm

I'd definitely recommend __utm.gif and I'd probably leave it at that. It's all really about personal style, but looking at the forums it seems that filters are generally indicated as being separate from any surrounding text. In this instance, bold text appears to be the most obvious answer.

User avatar
Erunno
Emeritus Contributor
Emeritus Contributor
Posts: 1866
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:21 pm
Reputation: 0

Post by Erunno » Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:33 pm

It's not really a filter but I'm okay with whatever makes the text more legible.
Zombie Contributor

User avatar
Erunno
Emeritus Contributor
Emeritus Contributor
Posts: 1866
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:21 pm
Reputation: 0

Post by Erunno » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:51 pm

Since nobody objected I expended the sticky with my addendum.
Zombie Contributor

Khrin
EasyList Author
EasyList Author
Posts: 3374
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:50 pm
Reputation: 12

Post by Khrin » Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:35 pm

http://www.sonymasterworks.com/

I suppose that for /ga/js should be applied the same rule for /ga.js, right?

Michael
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 4126
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:08 pm
Reputation: 0

Post by Michael » Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:49 pm

I would certainly advise against the filtering of the item.

Khrin
EasyList Author
EasyList Author
Posts: 3374
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:50 pm
Reputation: 12

Post by Khrin » Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:28 pm

I suppose that shouldn't be a good idea to block also /ga.php?, right? (Although I haven't done any test for now...)
http://english.aljazeera.net/mobile/200 ... 86854.html

MonztA
EasyList Author
EasyList Author
Posts: 8114
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:19 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Germany

Post by MonztA » Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:41 pm

In this case it's just an imge. I don't think blocking it would cause issues. I would suggest to add /googleanalytics/ga.php?$image to the general EP list.

Post Reply