"Thomas" <canope234@gmail.com> wrote

| Will it help to put Firefox/Waterfox leaked domains into the hosts file?

That's what I did. I block all of Mozilla and Firefox domains,
anyway. They're too snoopy. On all of my computers I'm
also using either Unbound or Acrylic for DNS resolution. Both
support their own HOSTS with wildcards. The Windows HOSTS
file, as far as I know, won't support an entire top domain. In
other words, if you add 123.sleazeball.com it won't block
sleazeball.com or 124.sleazeball.com. But the HOSTS for the
2 DNS resolvers will support just the top domain: *.sleazeball.com.
So you can do things like *.doubleclick.com.

But some domains are tricky. Akamai is a sleazy spyware
operation, but they're also a massive CDN. And it may not
work to block them because at least some CDN seems to
function as a passthrough. I don't understand the details,
but I've seen cases in monitoring where I'm getting page
content from Akamai despite putting it into HOSTS. I don't
seem to be getting sent to Akamai but rather connecting to
them somehow through the original website.

I was surprised to see these new Mozilla domains: mozgcp,
mozaws, cdn.mozilla... Why would that be necessary? It looks
like a proxy arrangement. Maybe it's part of safe browsing
crap, or homepage takeover. I don't know. But I don't want
FF calling home. Mozilla can no longer be trusted, in my view.
They broke that trust a long time ago, when they deliberately
tried to prevent me from blocking 3rd-party images "for my
own good", by a combination of secrecy and obfuscation.

Combinatronics is another CDN service that seems to use
Google Analytics for spying. This gets complicated. I block
google analytics. But if I can't stop passing trough to
combinatroincs and they have my IP address... and they
send that to GA... what do I do?

Akamai provides a vast amount of web content as a CDN.
They announced some years ago that they were going to start
spying and selling personal data -- even though it's not even
their data!

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/11/30/a-new-type-of-tracking-akamais-pixel-free-technology/

WSJ. Paywalled. I don't know if there's still a full version
of the article online. But this link provides a synopsis of
that article and others:

http://blueshiftideas.com/reports/FirstRound/121029AkamaiSlipsInStreamingExcelsInStaticContent.pdf

CDN is a largely unnoticed and growing privacy problem.
It's a bit like CVS/Walgreens getting around HIPAA, selling your
COVID shot info after they've forced you to make an appt
online and give them personal info. Or like being spied on
by the companies who made your TV or car. The spying
is transparent, effective, and not legislated. After all, who
would think of making a law to ban Ford from storing a record
of where you drive? Who would even think of the possibility?
But it's happening. Ad companies and the gov't have an
interest in that data. The public generally don't know about
the data. So there's no one to complain.

CDN companies are similar. You're not going to their site.
Even if you can block them, that might also block critical
webpage content. So it's not clear what you can do.

Akamai claimed in 2010 that they would only spy via cookie.
There are problems with that claim. First, almost no one will
be blocking their cookies because default browser settings don't
and most people still don't really know about cookies. They
know that perfectly well. If they satisfy the loudmouth geeks
then they can still spy on 99.9% of web traffic.

Second, Akamai has already established itself as a sleazeball
company by doing this, so why would their word carry any weight?
Essentially they're like a UPS driver who looks into your packages
and then sells that info to an advertising company. Then the
driver, when caught, says that if you go out to the truck when he
pulls up and ask him not to look in the box, then he won't. Huh?
Why would you trust the word of a person like that? They're selling
data that they had no right to touch in the first place. And they're
very unlikely to be alone. CDN is a potential gold mine for spying,
by companies that you're unlikely to ever know even exist.

So what do you do? I don't know if there's any solution with
CDN spying, but at least "cdn.mozilla.net", or "mozilla.net" can
be blocked. (I unblock it on those rare occasions when I decide
to update FF.)

Paul wrote:
> John C. wrote:
>>
>>> (snip)
>>
>> My primary care physician's office is always after me to create an
>> online account so that I can access my records and schedule
>> appointments, but whenever they do that I give the following standard
>> reply: "I refuse to conduct business of a confidential nature on the
>> internet. In my personal opinion, it's far too insecure of a venue for
>> doing so."
>
> Without writing a lot of stuff, it can improve the quality of
> your experience with the factory medical system. A portal cannot
> correct all the deficiencies, but any little bit of improvement, helps.
>
> I can see my labs, the same day the doctor sees them.
> By reading them in advance of my next appointment, I
> can have my list of questions ready. If I see "creatinine: marginal",
> I can ask the doctor whether I'm in trouble or not.
>
> https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/creatinine-test/about/pac-20384646
>
>
>    "A creatinine test is a measure of how well
>     your kidneys are performing their job"
>
> The portal session is protected via https, for in-flight protection.
> Your ISP cannot read the packets.

I don't care about the benefits of using the internet to conduct
business of a confidential nature. I can obtain the same information
elsewhere (by mail or by phone, for example.) The risks from obtaining
that same information via the internet, identity theft mainly, are too
great.

> Even if there wasn't a portal, ransomware can still attack the
> electronic records keeping system your doctor uses. It's not like
> the risk magically becomes zero, because there is no portal.

Yes, that's true, but that risk is one that's taken by my physician's
clinic and I have little or no control over that. Yet to combine that
risk with one that I take makes no sense. I just do what I can to
minimize the overall risk.

I also completely refuse to conduct any banking over the internet.

--
John C. BS206. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, pirated,
share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares for me please. I filter out
posts made from Google Groups and cross-posted (sent to more than one
newsgroup at a time) messages. I recommend you do likewise.

Op 29-03-2022 om 12:20 schreef John C.:
> I also completely refuse to conduct any banking over the internet.

Ah, wholly left in the early 20th century.
I have used internet banking for nearly 30 years and only see advantages.
I don't even want to think of the potential (life-threatening) problems
carrying cash around.

On 3/29/22 11:58, this is what Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
> Op 29-03-2022 om 12:20 schreef John C.:
>> I also completely refuse to conduct any banking over the internet.
>
> Ah, wholly left in the early 20th century.
> I have used internet banking for nearly 30 years and only see advantages.
> I don't even want to think of the potential (life-threatening) problems carrying cash around.

Plus stamps in the US are 55 cents now. 6 payments a month would be >$3.00
Not that that's a game changer but getting the letters to the Post Office.
I live in a condo and the mailbox at the front door for all 16 condos also as a pickup box for the carrier. Simple for me, also for others
that have a mailbox on the street (in dry weather).

Dirk T. Verbeek <dirk@example.com> wrote:
> Op 29-03-2022 om 12:20 schreef John C.:
> > I also completely refuse to conduct any banking over the internet.
>
> Ah, wholly left in the early 20th century.
> I have used internet banking for nearly 30 years and only see advantages.
> I don't even want to think of the potential (life-threatening) problems
> carrying cash around.

Well, you don't have to be "carrying cash around" if you don't want to
use internet banking. One has very little to nothing to do with the
other.

Op 29-03-2022 om 20:04 schreef Frank Slootweg:
> Dirk T. Verbeek <dirk@example.com> wrote:
>> Op 29-03-2022 om 12:20 schreef John C.:
>>> I also completely refuse to conduct any banking over the internet.
>>
>> Ah, wholly left in the early 20th century.
>> I have used internet banking for nearly 30 years and only see advantages.
>> I don't even want to think of the potential (life-threatening) problems
>> carrying cash around.
>
> Well, you don't have to be "carrying cash around" if you don't want to
> use internet banking. One has very little to nothing to do with the
> other.

Sure, those buying a car using a loan don't need to carry cash or use
internet banking.

On 3/29/22 4:19 PM, Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
> Op 29-03-2022 om 20:04 schreef Frank Slootweg:
>> Dirk T. Verbeek <dirk@example.com> wrote:
>>> Op 29-03-2022 om 12:20 schreef John C.:
>>>> I also completely refuse to conduct any banking over the internet.
>>>
>>> Ah, wholly left in the early 20th century.
>>> I have used internet banking for nearly 30 years and only see
>>> advantages.
>>> I don't even want to think of the potential (life-threatening) problems
>>> carrying cash around.
>>
>>    Well, you don't have to be "carrying cash around" if you don't
>> want to
>> use internet banking. One has very little to nothing to do with the
>> other.
>
> Sure, those buying a car using a loan don't need to carry cash or use
> internet banking.

The common accepted idea the bank will be the final arbiter that
determines if you have any money. And the bank will decide if you are a
worthy person who might aspire to acquire some comfort in the world.

The point which I am getting to is the important fact it does not matter
if you use the internet to conduct business your serfdom is testament
enough to describe the pit of this galaxy and world to be avoided.

Dirk T. Verbeek <dirk@example.com> wrote:
> Op 29-03-2022 om 20:04 schreef Frank Slootweg:
> > Dirk T. Verbeek <dirk@example.com> wrote:
> >> Op 29-03-2022 om 12:20 schreef John C.:
> >>> I also completely refuse to conduct any banking over the internet.
> >>
> >> Ah, wholly left in the early 20th century.
> >> I have used internet banking for nearly 30 years and only see advantages.
> >> I don't even want to think of the potential (life-threatening) problems
> >> carrying cash around.
> >
> > Well, you don't have to be "carrying cash around" if you don't want to
> > use internet banking. One has very little to nothing to do with the
> > other.
>
> Sure, those buying a car using a loan don't need to carry cash or use
> internet banking.

Not just when using a loan, but also for a transaction from the buyer's
bank account. Just fill in and sign the required (paper) transaction
form. Internet banking is handy, but internet banking is not required.
Guess how I bought my car in the late 60's? :-)

"Dirk T. Verbeek" <dirk@example.com>:
> I have used internet banking for nearly 30 years and only see advantages.
> I don't even want to think of the potential (life-threatening) problems
> carrying cash around.

Good boy, perfect citizen. Bonus social credit points and a virtual medal will
be awarded. For it's so good to let banks, government institutions and various
corporations always know how and where you spend your money.

Yrrah

On 3/30/22 11:41 AM, Yrrah wrote:
> "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dirk@example.com>:
>
>> I have used internet banking for nearly 30 years and only see advantages.
>> I don't even want to think of the potential (life-threatening) problems
>> carrying cash around.
> Good boy, perfect citizen. Bonus social credit points and a virtual medal will
> be awarded. For it's so good to let banks, government institutions and various
> corporations always know how and where you spend your money.
>
> Yrrah

Let us not forget ca$h as we arrive closer to a ca$hless society.

Op 30-03-2022 om 16:37 schreef Frank Slootweg:
> Dirk T. Verbeek <dirk@example.com> wrote:
>> Op 29-03-2022 om 20:04 schreef Frank Slootweg:
>>> Dirk T. Verbeek <dirk@example.com> wrote:
>>>> Op 29-03-2022 om 12:20 schreef John C.:
>>>>> I also completely refuse to conduct any banking over the internet.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, wholly left in the early 20th century.
>>>> I have used internet banking for nearly 30 years and only see advantages.
>>>> I don't even want to think of the potential (life-threatening) problems
>>>> carrying cash around.
>>>
>>> Well, you don't have to be "carrying cash around" if you don't want to
>>> use internet banking. One has very little to nothing to do with the
>>> other.
>>
>> Sure, those buying a car using a loan don't need to carry cash or use
>> internet banking.
>
> Not just when using a loan, but also for a transaction from the buyer's
> bank account. Just fill in and sign the required (paper) transaction
> form. Internet banking is handy, but internet banking is not required.
> Guess how I bought my car in the late 60's? :-)

You can try using a paper form but banks now charge for such operations,
and checks have for many years not been an option in my country.

As you say, we're over half a century past the '60's

Op 30-03-2022 om 17:41 schreef Yrrah:
> "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dirk@example.com>:
>
>> I have used internet banking for nearly 30 years and only see advantages.
>> I don't even want to think of the potential (life-threatening) problems
>> carrying cash around.
>
> Good boy, perfect citizen. Bonus social credit points and a virtual medal will
> be awarded. For it's so good to let banks, government institutions and various
> corporations always know how and where you spend your money.

Heh :)
The law now restricts the use of cash to buy things to €10,000 max.
Yes you may use more, say to buy a nice watch, but to limit money
laundering the seller has to report his customer to the financial
authorities.
Here in The Netherlands they talk about lowering this sum to €1000.

Mind you, contrary to in the USofA, companies and banks are not allowed
to monetise (sell) their customer's data.

Meaning when I buy another car I will simply pull out my phone and
transfer the required sum in near real time to the seller.
>
> Yrrah

Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
> The law now restricts the use of cash to buy things to €10,000 max.

In NL and BE it's EUR 3000.

> Yes you may use more, say to buy a nice watch, but to limit money
> laundering the seller has to report his customer to the financial
> authorities.
> Here in The Netherlands they talk about lowering this sum to €1000.

"they" is only a few.

> Meaning when I buy another car I will simply pull out my phone and
> transfer the required sum in near real time to the seller.

There you are: the risk of "smart"phones. ;-)

-p

Dirk T. Verbeek <dirk@example.com> wrote:
> Op 30-03-2022 om 16:37 schreef Frank Slootweg:
> > Dirk T. Verbeek <dirk@example.com> wrote:
> >> Op 29-03-2022 om 20:04 schreef Frank Slootweg:
> >>> Dirk T. Verbeek <dirk@example.com> wrote:
> >>>> Op 29-03-2022 om 12:20 schreef John C.:
> >>>>> I also completely refuse to conduct any banking over the internet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ah, wholly left in the early 20th century.
> >>>> I have used internet banking for nearly 30 years and only see advantages.
> >>>> I don't even want to think of the potential (life-threatening) problems
> >>>> carrying cash around.
> >>>
> >>> Well, you don't have to be "carrying cash around" if you don't want to
> >>> use internet banking. One has very little to nothing to do with the
> >>> other.
> >>
> >> Sure, those buying a car using a loan don't need to carry cash or use
> >> internet banking.
> >
> > Not just when using a loan, but also for a transaction from the buyer's
> > bank account. Just fill in and sign the required (paper) transaction
> > form. Internet banking is handy, but internet banking is not required.
> > Guess how I bought my car in the late 60's? :-)
>
> You can try using a paper form but banks now charge for such operations,

Yes, there's now talk about not charging people for paper - input and
output - if they do not want to use or can not use Internet banking.
Let's see how that goes.

> and checks have for many years not been an option in my country.

Funny that! It's the same in my country! :-)

FWIW, at the (late 60's) time, I bought my car with a check. When I
presented it, they said I shouldn't have bothered because a (urgent
('spoed')) transfer from my bank account would've been enough, but they
gladly accepted it.

> As you say, we're over half a century past the '60's

On 3/31/2022 11:19 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Dirk T. Verbeek <dirk@example.com> wrote:
>> Op 30-03-2022 om 16:37 schreef Frank Slootweg:
>>> Dirk T. Verbeek <dirk@example.com> wrote:
>>>> Op 29-03-2022 om 20:04 schreef Frank Slootweg:
>>>>> Dirk T. Verbeek <dirk@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Op 29-03-2022 om 12:20 schreef John C.:
>>>>>>> I also completely refuse to conduct any banking over the internet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, wholly left in the early 20th century.
>>>>>> I have used internet banking for nearly 30 years and only see advantages.
>>>>>> I don't even want to think of the potential (life-threatening) problems
>>>>>> carrying cash around.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, you don't have to be "carrying cash around" if you don't want to
>>>>> use internet banking. One has very little to nothing to do with the
>>>>> other.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, those buying a car using a loan don't need to carry cash or use
>>>> internet banking.
>>>
>>> Not just when using a loan, but also for a transaction from the buyer's
>>> bank account. Just fill in and sign the required (paper) transaction
>>> form. Internet banking is handy, but internet banking is not required.
>>> Guess how I bought my car in the late 60's? :-)
>>
>> You can try using a paper form but banks now charge for such operations,
>
> Yes, there's now talk about not charging people for paper - input and
> output - if they do not want to use or can not use Internet banking.
> Let's see how that goes.
>
>> and checks have for many years not been an option in my country.
>
> Funny that! It's the same in my country! :-)
>
> FWIW, at the (late 60's) time, I bought my car with a check. When I
> presented it, they said I shouldn't have bothered because a (urgent
> ('spoed')) transfer from my bank account would've been enough, but they
> gladly accepted it.

Here, they would not accept a plain check,
but they would accept a "certified check".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_check

"Thus, a certified check cannot be stopped or bounce, and, in this manner,
its liquidity is similar to cash barring bank failure or an illegal act..."

and that's what is attractive to the person
or company you are paying with one of those.

And you don't want to lose one of those. You
have practically no protections when using that
payment vehicle. They're not intended to be sent
by postal mail.

Paul