A misunderstanding and cross-formulation. I understand very well why clients5.googl.com should be blocked by WOT and effectively should be blocked by some other extensions as a typo squatting destination, that easily could be abused. Alas in Privacy Badger the official tracker clients5.google.com is blocked and no typo. Again my question why (there is clients5,4,3,2,1, and 0 dot google dot com) - Is this a notorious tracker or what?
Block the hidden layer of crap that exists in all corporate websites is very efficient and one of
the most effective methods available today for people running all versions of Windows, but
particularly for Win-98 users
, read on this here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.windows98/XR7nPrIE78I
I do not propogate a standpoint on this ad-tracking/cookie blocking. Just wanted to know,
how Privacy Badger worked out on the browser and what is being blocked in order of domains, cookies and what domains are allowed.
I do not particularly like the workings of hostfile blocking because they are that drastic and definitive, also slowing the browser quite a bit.
Privacy Badger until it has settled in it also slows the Chrome Broser downa bit, but that is only initially, as far as I could establish.
But Privacy Badger is not acting in the grey zone, where malbot fake search results and BHO infection threatens the browser.
For instance what about these?
```
# Block fake traffic
RewriteEngine on
Options +FollowSymlinks
# Block all http and https referrals from "savetubevideo.com" and all subdomains of "savetubevideo.com"
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^https?://([^.]+\.)*savetubevideo\.com\ [NC,OR]
# Block all http and https referrals from "srecorder.com" and all subdomains of "srecorder.com"
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^https?://([^.]+\.)*srecorder\.com\ [NC,OR]
# Block all http and https referrals from semalt.com" and all subdomains of "semalt.com"
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^https?://([^.]+\.)*semalt\.com\ [NC,OR]
# Block all http and https referrals from "kambasoft.com" and all subdomains of "kambasoft.com"
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^https?://([^.]+\.)*kambasoft\.com\ [NC]
RewriteRule .* - [F]
</blockquote> See my posting here: https://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=163554.0 and also read here: http://www.linuxbrigade.com/remove-kambasoft-com-google-analytics/ -> https://www.virustotal.com/nb/url/013765df1a1a8eec3ebf16e1a3a081977b47fcb0c1ba8e5a18dca75c566720a1/analysis/
and https://www.virustotal.com/nb/ip-address/217.23.2.19/information/
and http://www.herdprotect.com/ip-address-217.23.2.19.aspx
These inconclusive SEO abusers should be set out for what they are, crooks, and not only for the damage to the average website owner's ad income. Why Google is turning a blind eye here? Aren't they interested how their ad income is being generated - either via legit or through fake clicks. When blocked or flagged they find no way to ignore these abusers anymore. ;)
polonus
P.S. [b]Unique Privacy Protection Device[/b] ;D:
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/il_fullxfull.2283478601.jpg
Back then, they used to steal the ribbons and examine them for any valuable information.
It was tedious work and required lots of soap to hide the evidence of tampering.
Wasn’t there also not an issue with hidden-watermarked paper?
Off-line spying worked differently.
Some letters had “Blue Velvet Valentine” odor and color, wasn’t it?
tls-nextprotoneg:
| h2-15
| h2-14
| spdy/3.1
| spdy/3
|_ http/1.1 via linux/linux.kernel
Indeed time to check the links with a tracker tracker report as given attached. Do not try to open links from this attached file directly into a browser. Info strictly for research purposes only. The issue with trac.torproject.org tracking until now has not been tackled/solved by google apparently.
