[HN Gopher] The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when sear...
___________________________________________________________________
The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web
Author : taubek
Score : 154 points
Date : 2023-02-23 20:47 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.standard.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.standard.co.uk)
| saklash wrote:
| Over the years, marketing networks have been infiltrated by
| hackers who manipulate ads to spread malware. Since the ads were
| served through a host of web pages, the attackers could do damage
| to a victim's computers in minutes. With an ad blocker, though,
| you can prevent this situation from happening to you.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| Here are a few things I do to combat nasty websites:
|
| - blacklists entire domains using wildcards (using an "unbound"
| DNS resolver and forcing all traffic to my DNS resolver,
| preventing _my browser_ to use DoH -- I can still then use DoH if
| I want, from unbound)
|
| - reject or drop a huge number of known bad actors, regularly
| updated: they go into gigantic "ip sets" firewall rules
|
| - (I came up with this one): use a little firewall rule that
| prevents _any_ IDN from resolving. That 's a one line UDP rule
| and it stops cold dead any IDN homograph attack. Basically
| searching any UDP packet for the "xn--" string.
|
| I do _not_ care about what this breaks. The Web still works
| totally fine for me, including Google 's G Suite (yeah, I know).
|
| EDIT: just to be clear seen the comments for I realize I wasn't
| very precise... I'm not saying all IDN domains are bad! What I'm
| saying is that in my day to day Web surfing, 99.99% of the
| websites I'm using do not use IDN and so, in my case, blocking
| IDN, up until today, is totally fine as it not only doesn't
| prevent _me_ from surfing the Web (I haven 't seen a single site
| I need breaking) but it also protects me from IDN homograph
| attacks. Your mileage may vary and you live in a country where
| it's normal to go on website with internationalized domain names,
| then obviously you cannot simply drop all UDP packets attempting
| to resolve IDNs.
| cgb223 wrote:
| What's an IDN and what does blocking them help with?
| NetOpWibby wrote:
| Mainly homoglyphs. Characters that LOOK like Latin characters
| but aren't. Scammers register domains to make it look like at
| a glance you're visiting a reputable site.
|
| It's why many browsers started defaulting to showing
| "xn--<whatever>" (punycode representation of IDN characters).
|
| It sucks for domains that are emoji but whatevs. Scammers
| ruining things for everyone, as usual.
| buildbot wrote:
| International domain name - blocking them prevents look alike
| URLs from working. But also, IMO, this is bad advice for
| anyone who uses not English as a language...
| giobox wrote:
| While these are all good practices, killing DoH conclusively on
| your home network is more difficult than you've made it seem,
| as ultimately all you can really do is use domain blacklists at
| your firewall. It's no longer as straight forward as just
| control port 53 traffic, not like you can realistically shut
| down 443... Blocking DoH is largely whack-a-mole and I think is
| only going to get worse as this and similar techniques spread.
| There are so many sneaky ways to resolve a hostname an app or
| device can choose to use now.
|
| You can force traditional port 53 DNS protocol traffic to your
| own resolver with firewall rules, the same doesn't work for
| DoH. a DoH request to a domain your firewall blacklist doesn't
| have looks just like ordinary https/443 traffic and will pass
| unhindered.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| _Blocking DoH is largely whack-a-mole_
|
| Maybe this is so but I have yet to see it. AFAIK all the
| DoT/DoH are on known dedicated IP addresses. I know they
| don't have to be. They could be on generic
| Akamai/CF/BunnyCDN/etc... end points but I have yet to come
| across one utilized in the wild. Have you found any? What are
| their IP addresses? I would like to add them to my DNS
| timing/monitoring scripts.
|
| I null route about 24 DoT/DoH IP addresses and my one
| smartphone seemed to figure out automagically that my router
| was serving up DoT on 853.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > While these are all good practices, killing DoH
| conclusively on your home network is more difficult than
| you've made it seem
|
| Oh I know but so far you can still ask both Firefox and
| Chromium to not use DoH and hence force them to use port 53
| and from what I've seen they really honor that. For the
| moment.
|
| I don't doubt that in a not so distant future we may see
| companies hardcoding DoH into apps without any possibility of
| removing that setting!
|
| What I do is no panacea but it gets rid of a lot of things.
|
| > There are so many sneaky ways to resolve a hostname an app
| or device can choose to use now.
|
| But I whitelist apps that can connect to the net. Browsers,
| apt (for Debian/Devuan package update), the one that update
| the NTP/time, SSH out and that's basically it.
|
| I know it's a game of whack-a-mole, but I'm still playing it
| : )
| SahAssar wrote:
| The last one is very anglo-centric (or at least centric to
| fully latinized languages). Do you not find the rules[0] in for
| example chrome working?
|
| [0]:
| https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/i...
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| I'm not even a native english speaker and my native language
| does have accentuated characters so there's that...
|
| I don't like to have to set rules in browsers: I'll do it
| when mandatory but I prefer things that the browser won't
| change during it's next update and, also, I use several
| browsers.
| eurticket wrote:
| Steven Black runs a hosts file on GitHub with regular updates.
| https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts
|
| There are a bunch of file variants to weed out specific bad
| actors.
|
| It's well currated though I will disclaimer it has broken a few
| websites in the past for me. Maybe that's a good thing.
| halfjoking wrote:
| FBI must have infiltrated ad blocker servers containing malicious
| url lists.
|
| Never using an adblocker again.
| raydiatian wrote:
| Username checks out.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Using an adblocker based on Manifest v3 would avoid this, as
| those blockers can't phone home to update their malware
| datasets. ;)
| cudgy wrote:
| Is this not also the case when using iOS content blockers?
| [deleted]
| westcort wrote:
| Any recommendations for a good ad blocker and other precautions
| to take?
| lemoncookiechip wrote:
| A combination of uBlock Origin + NoScript + Bypass Paywalls
| Clean + FastForward + ClearURLs as well as a pop-up blocker of
| your choice, will make your web browsing experience a bit
| cleaner. Not all of these might available for Chromium, I
| personally use Firefox for my daily use, with some Chromium
| browsers as backup.
|
| NoScript will break pretty much 50% of the web. It'll take you
| about a day to whitelist all the sites you use daily and then
| it's smooth sailing.
|
| I would also highly recommend this privacy focused list.
| https://www.privacytools.io/
| markx2 wrote:
| https://nextdns.io and then UBlock Origin, uMatrix, Noscript at
| least.
| blakesterz wrote:
| I think I found NextDNS here on HN and I've been really happy
| with it.
| SparkyMcUnicorn wrote:
| NextDNS + Ublock Origin (or Brave Browser, since it uses the
| UBO lists by default) is a really good combo on its own, and
| easy enough for my self-proclaimed "tech illiterate" friends
| to set up and use.
|
| Also, it's pretty cool that NextDNS has this:
| https://github.com/nextdns/nextdns/wiki
| Scoundreller wrote:
| On iOS (but also for mac and tvOS), I took my pick of dns based
| systems here:
|
| https://encrypted-dns.party/
|
| https://gitlab.com/nitrohorse/ios14-encrypted-dns-mobileconf...
|
| No idea if I should really trust them, or if there's a better
| way to install profiles directly from CIRA or Mullvad like I
| use.
|
| Nice thing is that it's device wide and all free (hopefully not
| for malicious intents).
| sys42590 wrote:
| I recommend uBlock Origin and the anti-malware DNS from
| Cloudflare
| haunter wrote:
| I use uBlock Origin on PC and Adguard Pro on iOS (with the
| uBlock Origin filters 1:1)
| bogwog wrote:
| I use adnauseam (https://adnauseam.io/), which is built on top
| of ublock origin, and it works pretty well.
|
| The generic nuclear option to hide terrible web design, bypass
| (some) paywalls, and improve performance 1000x is to disable
| javascript. ublock and adnauseam both have a button to disable
| all javascript on a page, which is handy when reading articles
| on sites filled with garbage.
| autoexec wrote:
| adnauseam is seriously a terrible idea. It's actually
| dangerous. The idea that you can somehow trick advertisers by
| polluting your dossier and making it useless to them after
| filling it with random data is fundamentally flawed.
|
| Every scrap of data collected about you will be used against
| you. It doesn't matter if it's accurate or not, nobody cares
| if they data they have about you is accurate, data brokers
| will happily sell your personal info to anyone even knowing
| full well that it's got inaccurate and conflicting info in
| it. Many won't even know because the process is entirely
| automated.
|
| By automatically clicking on ads and "expressing interest" in
| random things you're just filling your dossier with ammo
| which gets handed to others to fire at you. Every random
| thing you add to your permanent record is one more thing that
| can only hurt you.
|
| You cannot know what will prejudice someone against you.
| Maybe one day adnauseam decides to click on something that
| gets you flagged as having a certain political view, or
| having a certain sexual orientation, or being an alcoholic,
| or having a mental illness, or being at a certain income
| level, or belonging to a certain religion, etc. One day that
| exact data can cause you to get turned down for a job, or for
| housing. It can mean that a website charges you more than
| what your neighbor pays for the same product. It can mean
| your insurance rates go up next year.
|
| You will never be told when it happens or why. Your health
| insurance company isn't going to tell you that they raised
| your rates because you (adnauseam) clicked on too many fast
| food ads last quarter. You're just suddenly getting a higher
| bill. Your auto insurance company won't tell you that they
| raised your rates after you were clicking ads for DUI
| lawyers, but suddenly they and every other insurance provider
| you try are quoting you higher monthly prices.
|
| If your browser extension decides to go click on ads about
| abortions you could even end up being hauled into a texas
| courtroom and having to defend against charges. Sure, you'd
| get them thrown out eventually. Probably. But it would still
| cost you a ton of time and money and stress. The information
| in your dossier can get you targeted, harassed, or attacked
| by extremists. It can get be used against you in court rooms.
| It can get you investigated by three letter agencies. It can
| be used to impact your 'secret consumer score' or consumer
| trustworthiness rating.
|
| The information being collected about you is sold to
| companies, employers, activists, extremists, and law
| enforcement. That data never goes away. It follows you for
| the rest of your life and will be used against you in ways
| you'll never be aware of and cannot today imagine. Filling
| your dossier with huge amounts of content (random or not) is
| dangerous and only increases your risk for zero benefit.
| bogwog wrote:
| All I care about is hiding/obfuscating my personal
| information. I just don't like the idea of giving that away
| for free, even if it's actually harmless.
|
| I don't care if I get wrongly labeled/categorized due to
| this. It's not like my profile was an accurate
| representation of who I am before I turned on ad nauseam.
| If someone gets dragged into a court room for clicking ads,
| that would be funny, and I doubt they would have a hard
| time finding support from orgs like the EFF, gofundme, etc.
|
| One long term benefit of this is that if a lot of people
| use it, advertisers will start seeing diminishing returns
| on their investment in internet ads. This will lead to
| reduced spending and less ads overall.
| autoexec wrote:
| > All I care about is hiding/obfuscating my personal
| information.
|
| adnauseam does not do this. It only adds to your personal
| information. It doesn't hide anything.
|
| > I don't care if I get wrongly labeled/categorized due
| to this.
|
| Then you must not care when you suffer from the impacts
| of having been wrongly labeled/categorized. Nobody can
| make you care about yourself, your money, your safety, or
| your time if you won't.
|
| > It's not like my profile was an accurate representation
| of who I am before I turned on ad nauseam.
|
| Again, nobody cares about how accurate it is or not. It's
| about quantity, not quality. Accurate or not, that data
| will increasingly impact your life in very real ways. The
| more data they have, the worse it will be for you.
|
| > One long term benefit of this is that if a lot of
| people use it, advertisers will start seeing diminishing
| returns on their investment in internet ads.
|
| this isn't actually true, because again, advertisers
| don't care. That's why the world is filled with ads that
| aren't laser focused on you as an individual. We have
| more and more ads on network TV, on billboards, on radio
| etc. None of them were stopped because they sometimes
| showed an ad to someone who doesn't care about it.
| Seriously, they don't care. You clicked, that's good
| enough for them. Sales aren't even always the goal. Being
| seen (or the appearance of being seen) is often all they
| need.
|
| You're seriously only hurting yourself.
| krackers wrote:
| >both have a button to disable all javascript on a page
|
| Be slightly careful, there's a known issue (limitation of
| Chrome really) where requests and javascript are not blocked
| in the first few seconds of launching a browser or an
| incognito window (you can test this yourself). And this is
| true even with "Suspend network activity until all filter
| lists are loaded" enabled, because I think it's some
| limitation on Chrome as to when exactly extensions get
| loaded.
|
| So if you do rely on javascript being disabled for safety,
| after a fresh launch or new incognito window, you should
| visit a safe webpage first before going to the risky one.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Just switch to a browser that respects user privacy. With
| NoScript you can fine tune which domains you'll accept
| scripts from when the zero-JS experience isn't usable.
| fl0ps wrote:
| I'm going to just read "limitation on Chrome" as "purposely
| defective by design" as there's sufficient incentive to
| delay disabling to let a few telemetric squeaks escape.
| _rs wrote:
| On Mac and iOS I use and recommend AdGuard which has native
| content blocker extensions and lets you use Easylist block
| lists (as well as their own).
|
| On Chrome/Firefox I use uBlock Origin which works well. I'm not
| sure if the community recommends something else at this point.
|
| I also use various other extensions like StopTheMadness to
| disable right click hijacking and other bad behavior and Banish
| on iOS to prevent certain banners from appearing.
| jjkmk wrote:
| UBlock Orgin works for most browsers, and has been the industry
| standard for some time. You can even deploy it as part of group
| policy in an organization:
| https://deployhappiness.com/deploying-ublock-origin-for-chro...
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, Pi-hole, and a mobile browser
| like Firefox that allows for extensions for those times when
| one is not browsing on the same network that the Pi-hole runs
| on. One may also use a VPN on all devices that connect to a
| network with DNS-level ad-blocking.
| pmontra wrote:
| If you're on Android also use Blockada to block ads in app.
| It's a local VPN server that filters out requests to ad
| servers. I think there are other apps like that but I never
| used anything else.
| dooglius wrote:
| It ultimately depends on what your threat model is, what are
| you trying to defend against? I use Qubes dispvms (whonix if
| possible) for personal browsing, but that's pretty far toward
| the extreme end of the scale.
| [deleted]
| ezfe wrote:
| I use Wipr on Safari for Mac & iPhone
| behnamoh wrote:
| I know most people trash on Brave, but honestly, if you disable
| its crypto features (which is just a click away), it's actually
| a decent browser that blocks almost all ads I see, even on iOS!
|
| For example, YouTube has no ads in iOS Brave. Since iOS doesn't
| allow real browsers and extensions, Brave has been a sanity-
| saver for me.
|
| Pair that with uBlock on desktop and you're golden. 98% of the
| sites don't break at all either.
| frizlab wrote:
| Safari on iOS does allow extensions. It also is a "real"
| browser, whatever that means. iOS does not, however, allow
| _alternate rendering engines_, which is different.
| kadoban wrote:
| It allows one real browser. The rest might as well just be
| reskins for how little it matters.
| behnamoh wrote:
| I find Safari extensions inferior than Chrome/Firefox
| extensions. Who thought it's a good idea to show extensions
| as apps on the springboard/launchpad??
|
| I now have 68 extensions on my Brave (desktop). Imagine
| seeing 68 additional icons on my macOS launchpad!
| Zurrrrr wrote:
| Acting like you don't know what a real browser means in
| this context just so you can be mock offended.
|
| Oh you Apple users.
| SparkyMcUnicorn wrote:
| It's also way easier to just tell my mom (for example) to use
| Brave, rather than explaining extensions, why "uBlock Origin"
| vs "uBlock", etc.
|
| Single app, all devices, works great out of the box.
| Zetice wrote:
| On MacOS I like Little Snitch for OS level stuff, with some
| rule groups like ads_stevenblack and malwares_prigent.
| anonymousiam wrote:
| Pi-hole (https://pi-hole.net/) is a great ad blocker that
| requires no changes to your clients.
| mouse_ wrote:
| I feel like, for those asking for cursory information about
| setting up an ad blocker, ublock origin should be
| recommended, and not pi-hole. Ublock Origin is a one click
| solution that works great for everyone, while pi-hole
| requires setup and does quite a lot. For instance, when I was
| using pi-hole, Windows Update and Epic Games Launcher simply
| stopped working for me. I'm not sure what was going on, it
| could have been something wrong on my end, but nonetheless,
| I'd hate having to help a user with issues like this after
| recommending pi-hole when all they wanted in the first place
| was a simple ad blocker. In my opinion, pi-hole is great, but
| it should only be brought up in cases where the user has
| already communicated they want something more than UBO.
| anonymousiam wrote:
| I respect your feelings, but Ublock Origin is not available
| on my Android phone or on my iPad. It's also not available
| for all browsers. It may not work for you, but for me Pi-
| hole is a wonderful solution for my whole family, and they
| don't ever need me to touch their devices in order for it
| to work for them.
| Zizizizz wrote:
| It's on Firefox
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| it works on android (as long as you use firefox)
| cld8483 wrote:
| That's fine if you have no other option, but it is inferior
| to uBlock Origin since it can't do any cosmetic filtering.
| Better to use pi-hole on your network for clients that have
| no other choice, but to then also use uBlock Origin on any
| client you can.
| jmclnx wrote:
| I use noscript
|
| https://noscript.net/
|
| But I sort of think this may be more of an issue with Cell
| Phones.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| No script is excellent, but it is certainly not for the faint
| of heart. It basically breaks the (modern) internet and then
| you have to go in yourself an unfuck each website.
|
| The upside though is big, stops all the insane bloat that
| runs on most pages. Many websites run fine with all their
| scripts blocked too.
| radium3d wrote:
| hehe makes sense to send all the pages you visit to the FBI/NSA,
| etc. If they have multiple sources (DNS and AdBlockers, VPNS,
| etc. They can verify the data on one or the other.
| drusepth wrote:
| Does anyone have any adblockers they recommend that still show
| "safe" ads (e.g. non-malware) by default, without having to
| whitelist every site? I'd be open to the security benefits of an
| adblocker if I could still passively support all the sites I
| visit.
|
| Edit: changed "good" to "safe" for clarity
| cld8483 wrote:
| The only "good" ads are those you have to specifically go out
| of your way to view because you want to view them; such as
| product catalogues.
|
| All other ads are physiological assault and should be made
| illegal. Particularly those ads which exist "IRL" and can't
| otherwise be blocked, such as billboards.
| cinntaile wrote:
| The problem is you can't tell the difference.
| autoexec wrote:
| Pretty late to the game there, FBI. There are examples going back
| decades of drive by downloads and exploits from ads on popular
| websites. It's not enough to avoid shady websites. Any website
| filled with ads is already a shady website.
| madars wrote:
| Or, in other words, FBI now recommends using Android :-) It's
| baffling how much better uBlock Origin + Firefox experience on
| Android is compared to any iOS ad blocker I have tried. They
| kind-of work but let half of the ads through.
| hailwren wrote:
| Yeah, android trades browser ads for system wide tracking. I'm
| not really sure that's a good deal.
| poglet wrote:
| Not comparable but NextDNS has been working well for me on iOS.
| comprev wrote:
| NextDNS works for 95% of the web I visit. AdGuard iOS plugin
| works on Facebook's mobile web app for when I rarely use it.
| dcdc123 wrote:
| Brave browser on iOS has good blocking, but the browser
| experience itself is a bit of a mixed bag.
| kmlx wrote:
| i've used this one for years:
|
| https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/wipr/id1030595027
|
| no issues, works great.
| mlindner wrote:
| Do all the people who use computers to browse the internet (the
| majority of people on the internet) suddenly no longer exist?
| contravariant wrote:
| I'm wondering if those still are the majority, worldwide.
| Smart-phones have done a lot to democratize computing power
| (now if only they weren't used to put >90% of their users in
| corporate controlled walled gardens...)
| jstx1 wrote:
| I bet they're still the majority - the people who only use
| their phone do it through apps, not through their mobile
| browser.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| I'm still here. I've used a browser on my phone exactly once
| to register my phone. With exception to that one time I only
| use Firefox on Linux on an old PC.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Those who used them 10 years ago still use them... but
| billions who didn't use them then, use smartphones now.
| VFIT7CTO77TOC wrote:
| It is infuriating that Google seems to be doing nothing about
| scam ads. For years I have been seeing "Click to install iPhone
| update!!!" ads on YouTube mobile. Easy to have huge profit
| margins when your company hires no humans to do things like
| customer support and ad vetting.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| There's been a series of malware distribution ads pretending to
| be blender.org popping up at the top of Google results on and
| off for months.
|
| 1 month ago:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/blender/comments/109yjxm/dont_click...
|
| 2 months ago:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/blender/comments/zewem3/beware_of_p...
|
| 4 months ago:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/blender/comments/xxkx5s/warning_som...
|
| 7 months ago:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/blender/comments/vuqu1r/hey_so_what...
|
| Pretty sad state of affairs that Google can't or won't stop
| this, especially since they gradually redesigned the ads spots
| to look practically identical to the search results. Be very
| careful clicking anything on Google's search results.
| junon wrote:
| I still get ads for Slovenian brides on YouTube. Not only is it
| incredibly gross and objective to me, Google clearly knows
| nothing about my demographic.
| prox wrote:
| I still see extreme right wing propaganda on a pristine
| profile on YouTube's flipping homepage. I would love to use
| expletives on the YT management right now, but I refrain.
| UberFly wrote:
| Yea, I think we can all conclude they just don't care if it
| effects their bottom line. So short-sighted. About a month ago
| people in the AMD subreddit were complaining about compromised
| drivers and software appearing as the #1 search results due to
| these kind of ads.
| [deleted]
| tomohawk wrote:
| They don't like the competition.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| Which we should probably take to mean at least some of the
| popular ad blockers are comprised to some degree in law
| enforcements favour.
|
| Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me
| ;)
| cheapliquor wrote:
| FBI said I can have a little uBlock Origin
|
| As a treat
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| I think browser Notifications help drive these attacks. How many
| web sites do you visit that offer a pop-up that says the site
| would like to send you Notifications? You click Allow and
| suddenly start seeing Ads popup in your Notification area, not a
| site notification but an Ad.
|
| I had a user show me one of these Notification ads just this
| week, telling here that McAfee found a virus and click the Ad to
| remove the virus. We do not even use McAfee, it was a straight up
| attack ad. Thanks Chrome!
| elecush wrote:
| FBI's chief export: software suggestions
| lakomen wrote:
| Well too bad Google won't let you on the phone, Firefox at least
| allows you to install ublock.
| Zizizizz wrote:
| Brave, Firefox, Bromite all do, or you can use nextdns or
| adguard as a private DNS in your network settings. I think the
| last option is a little wireguard set up to route traffic to a
| server or small pc that has unbound and pinhole on it
| staringback wrote:
| DNS adblocking isn't even remotely comparable to ublock
| origin
| wooptoo wrote:
| Can you please elaborate on this? thanks
| rmason wrote:
| Is it time for an open source adblocker that only blocks bad
| actors?
|
| I am perfectly fine with ads, I've previously run sites where it
| was a small source of income myself. I know it would be in a cat
| and mouse game with the bad guys but if it blocked most of them
| it would certainly help a lot of people.
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| Let's build that company that serves ads and blocks bad actors.
| We can then offer the blocklist to other blockers.
|
| Problems: * vetting ads costs a lot of time (= money). So
| you're getting less money per impression * requires a massive
| amount of infrastructure if you want to ensure that the ad
| doesn't change in between you vetting it and you serving it to
| your clients (= money).
|
| Meaning the consumers of our company will get less money per ad
| they show to their visitors.
|
| So they'll go to one that offers more. Simple as that.
|
| In order to fix the bad actors we need to start making the
| websites serving the ads (like Reddit) and/or the networks
| (DoubleClick) responsible for what they offer up.
|
| As long as that doesn't happen it'll remain a cesspool.
| Animats wrote:
| Make ad brokers share responsibility for losses due to scam ads.
| If the ad broker is unable to clearly identify the advertiser for
| lawsuit purposes, the ad broker should face consequences. They're
| assisting the criminal by helping them hide.
| NetOpWibby wrote:
| I like this
| kerkeslager wrote:
| At this point it's irresponsible for browsers not to come with ad
| blocking preinstalled.
| tech234a wrote:
| Official announcement, December 2022:
| https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-23 23:00 UTC)