Even the FBI Says You Should Use An Ad Blocker (techcrunch.com) 87
The FBI is recommending the use of ad blockers, warning in an alert this week that cybercriminals are using online ads in search results to steal or extort money from victims. TechCrunch reports: In a pre-holiday public service announcement, the FBI said that cybercriminals are buying ads to impersonate legitimate brands, like cryptocurrency exchanges. Ads are often placed at the top of search results but with "minimum distinction" between the ads and the search results, the feds say, which can look identical to the brands that the cybercriminals are impersonating. Malicious ads are also used to trick victims into installing malware disguised as genuine apps, which can steal passwords and deploy file-encrypting ransomware. One of the FBI's recommendations for consumers is to install an ad blocker.
As the name suggests, ad blockers are web browser extensions that broadly block online ads from loading in your browser, including in search results. By blocking ads, would-be victims are not shown any ads at all, making it easier to find and access the websites of legitimate brands. Ad blockers don't just remove the enormous bloat from websites, like auto-playing video and splashy ads that take up half the page, which make your computer fans run like jet engines. Ad blockers are also good for privacy, because they prevent the tracking code within ads from loading. That means the ad companies, like Google and Facebook, cannot track you as you browse the web, or learn which websites you visit, or infer what things you might be interested in based on your web history. "Of course, you can switch your ad blocker off any time you want, and even allow or deny ads for entire websites," adds the report.
"Ads are still an important part of what keeps the internet largely free and accessible, including TechCrunch (and Slashdot!), even as subscriptions and paywalls are increasingly becoming the norm."
As the name suggests, ad blockers are web browser extensions that broadly block online ads from loading in your browser, including in search results. By blocking ads, would-be victims are not shown any ads at all, making it easier to find and access the websites of legitimate brands. Ad blockers don't just remove the enormous bloat from websites, like auto-playing video and splashy ads that take up half the page, which make your computer fans run like jet engines. Ad blockers are also good for privacy, because they prevent the tracking code within ads from loading. That means the ad companies, like Google and Facebook, cannot track you as you browse the web, or learn which websites you visit, or infer what things you might be interested in based on your web history. "Of course, you can switch your ad blocker off any time you want, and even allow or deny ads for entire websites," adds the report.
"Ads are still an important part of what keeps the internet largely free and accessible, including TechCrunch (and Slashdot!), even as subscriptions and paywalls are increasingly becoming the norm."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No, what's happened is THE FBI HAS BEEN COMPROMISED, but it's old news. I just found out recently, and silence hasn't kept me from being KIDNAPPED, RAPED AND MUTILATED.
Re: (Score:1)
Also they've killed people I cared about. Be careful what you write off as impossible. It could happen to someone you care about too.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Girlfriends, friends, roommates, business partners, my real family and anyone I ever met who they couldn't buy off or threaten into submission. Anyone loyal to me, any strangers who vowed to testify on my behalf.
Re: (Score:1)
See, the issue we have is the FBI could have been stopping this all along, and the reason it has gotten so bad is because they were instead helping the criminals get away with it, which is the opposite of their actual job. Now if they're putting out a PSA like this that means they realized they've created a monster more powerful than them, and they might regret it. That message wasn't for you, it was for them, and I'm sure they'll get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the FBI has been compromised by statist authoritarians since at least the time of Hoover, but I don't know of any evidence that they are Satanists, or even believers in Dianetics.
Show of hands (Score:5, Insightful)
Who here doesn't already use (at least) an ad blocker?
Re: (Score:2)
Here? Nobody. Among the normies, the vast majority probably.
Re: (Score:2)
Who here doesn't already use (at least) an ad blocker?
Here? Nobody. Among the normies, the vast majority probably.
Firefox should include some ad blocker already in the installer and enable it by default. Because it is unfortunately true.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't. But w3m don't show much in the way that needs of blocking.
Re: (Score:1)
Which happens to also block 99,99% van all ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the number of people who complain in the comments about ads I'd say a surprising number of people here, all of whom should know better.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for the day someone comes out with a cookie blacklist plugin. I've been amazed at how my browsing experience has improved by blocking cookies from just a few (mostly news) websites.
Re: (Score:2)
A local custom style sheet is a good enhancement to ad blockers and such too. I close up the holes where the ads used to be by hiding the divs.
Re: (Score:3)
I vividly remember when I first found the need to block ads. Late at night at the university, late 90s, in a dead quiet computer lab doing some work. Opened a browser link, and got a full volume, full video flash Chevy Silverado advertizement blasting me in the face. Just about made me shit my pants.
And that was it. Been blocking ads, trackers, JS, etc., since then. And I won't ever stop. If I can't use a website without ads, I won't use the website.
If advertisers could have set some standards for themselve
Absolute minimum security. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Ad Blocker? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How about an FBI Blocker! Since nothing good comes from those political hacks these days. I am old enough to recall when the FBI did crime.
Grind that Axe.
Re: Ad Blocker? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You should build your Patriotic Southern Wall out of Hunter Biden's laptop since none of you seem to be able to get over it.
Re:Ad Blocker? (Score:4, Funny)
The Radical Left FBI is coming for the honest ad industry! Sad!
Re: Ad Blocker? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am old enough to recall when the FBI did crime.
That's pretty old 'cause they've been tasked with "fighting crime" for quite a while. :-)
Impersonate legitimate brands (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The crins then advertise their adblockers (Score:1)
Search Result Ads? (Score:2)
Are they referring to the unblockable results that border the one legitimate search result, or banner ads that have long since been blocked?
Since DDG has turned to complete shit for actually finding anything, is there anything out there that actually works? I feel like a subscription-based ad-free, non-tracking search engine would be more useful at this point than the subscription for newspapers...
and if any one tries to sue under DMCA then you ha (Score:2)
and if any one tries to sue under DMCA then you have an easy out
So commas _are_ important? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
yes, commas are important. It's the difference between
Helping your uncle Jack, off a horse.
~or~
Helping your uncle jack off a horse
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is not a good example.
A good example of the difference a comma can make is this:
Let's eat, Grandma!
OR
Let's eat Grandma!
Re: (Score:2)
The Importance of the OxfordComma
Owing to ambiguities caused by its omission,
the Oxford comma became the subject of a petition
raised by serious serialists desperate to ensure
its use was to be mandated in lists of three or more.
Signatures flooded in from across all of society;
never had they expected to see such variety.
Who would have thought that those in favour
would have had such a diverse, democratic flavour?
There were the investment bankers,
the robbers and thieves,
as well as C-list celebrities,
the needy a
First thing (Score:1)
Start looking hard at who is funding ad blocker development. Find the ones that tie back to the Michael H. Alderson IV's out of Virginia.
Re: First thing (Score:2)
can i get a blocker for, (Score:2)
Re: can i get a blocker for, (Score:2)
You would find it creepy and unacceptable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If someone was following you to most stores you visit, following you into the store and noting all of the products you buy or look at. But we let advertisers and social media giants do just that. It is insane the data that is collected. It's also bad for businesses because all of the purchasing data is being logged, someone could misuse it.
They already do this.
Re: You would find it creepy and unacceptable (Score:2)
Manifest V3????? (Score:2)
Does this mean that the FBI thinks that Manifest V3 is bad?
Re: (Score:2)
> Does this mean that the FBI thinks that Manifest V3 is bad?
Chrome is bad for National Security, apparently.
"what keeps the internet largely free" (Score:2)
Ads are still an important part of what keeps the internet largely free and accessible
Oh, I did not know I can send my ISP's monthly bill to some advertiser instead of paying it myself. Please tell me more on where exactly to send those bills that I always paid...
Re:"what keeps the internet largely free" (Score:4, Insightful)
The costs to provide what you consume on the internet go far and beyond just your local ISP connection. You're largely insulated from those costs because of ads.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe websites should make content worth paying for, every other media business has to outside of OTA television (and radio) . I will accept ad's when I can pull the internet out of thin air using a coat hanger and a flap of tinfoil, like I can with broadcast TV
Re: (Score:2)
Or compare newspapers and magazines, which have both a paywall and ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that I thought the internet was better before they allowed commercial transactions, I'm not sure I agree with you.
Re:"what keeps the internet largely free" (Score:4, Insightful)
I blame the advertising networks (Score:5, Insightful)
There's going to be push-back, suggesting that you need to look at ads to "support websites." But ultimately: I blame the people selling the ads, that is, the advertising networks themselves.
People for the most part didn't really care about advertisements. When the ads weren't annoying, people wouldn't go out of the way to block them. But the advertising networks simply refused to stop being annoying. They refused to police the ads they served, more than happy to allow anyone to serve any content through their network. They became an active security risk.
The most likely source of malware these days is via drive-by download via compromised ad. The ad networks simply don't bother policing their ads. They could have limited what content advertisers are allowed to serve, they could check who's buying the ads and where they go, but they don't care, as long as they get their money.
And in the end, people start having to block ads not only for their sanity, but also their security. So we reach today, where an ad blocker is arguably more important than any other security software.
Congratulations, advertisers. You did this to yourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and since Google is totally unresponsive to any reports of scam-ads I think they deserve to lose the revenues.
I mean, check the comments on this video [youtube.com]
Clearly *all* that Google cares about is revenue, regardless of how much harm it does the wider internet audience.
Re: (Score:2)
The ad market was always going to become a malware delivery market. There is no incentive to play nice. Abuse is the most profitable course of action.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this. I only started blocking ads once the web became unusable without an adblocker. It still baffles me that people can actually use the web in its current form without one. I wouldn't mind ads in principle, but as long as the current ad industry doesn't massively change, I'll keep blocking them.
Re: (Score:1)
That about all adds stop working without JavaScript, well that is not my problem.
Running code from whoever is a big security risk.
the reverse? (Score:1)
A certain tinted FL resident wants an FBI blocker.
In other words (Score:3)
Leading ad blocker companies have agreed to include FBI surveillance capabilities in the ad blocker?
What they are not telling you is... (Score:1)
They too are tired of seeing ads and sucking up data storage resources as they collect information on you and everyone's use of the internet.
just think of the googleplexes of ads data they have been dealing with.
Maybe it's time to stop using ad blockers.
Re: (Score:2)
Ad Blocker? Which one has been good for you? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Adblock plus was compromised years ago. uBlock Origin is currently the only one with the hard-earned trust of nerds, geeks and techies everywhere.
Then add "Privacy Badger" for anti-tracking - developed by the non-profit EFF so not going be sold to a malware shithead.
Re: (Score:2)
uBlock Origin works great on Firefox. It was recommended to me by a former co-worker who is now working at Mozilla.
I never minded the ads, but when they began to slow down my laptop to a crawl, I had to start using an ad blocker. With uBlock Origin, an old laptop can one again become a great web surfing system.
Re: Ad Blocker? Which one has been good for you? (Score:2)
I use a combination of DNS RPZ and layer 7 firewall, with an associated denied policy for Advertisement websites category. Breaks a few sites every now and then when these have multiple categories, however I can always add them individually to an exception policy. May not work as well as a browser based Ad blocker extension since it is not effective against JavaScript or same site based ads, but it is a first level of protection against the large majority of ads providers, and catches a few things the exten
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Publisher responsibility (Score:2)
Here's an idea - publishers are in general legally responsible for what they publish, so why exactly aren't ad publishers legally responsible for *at least* screening ads for malware, and directing people to known-fraudulent sites? Seems like there should be some liability there.
If they're paying you to serve their ads, it seems like that should make you an accomplice in their crimes.
Hard to trust the FBI (Score:1)
If you know anything about the FBI's history, you would not put much trust in the FBI. Recent history of older history.
Some sites detect ad blockers and won't allow them (Score:1)
Without ads, the site cannot generate income. Hard to blame the sites.
Also, I want ads on youtube. Might seem crazy, but I think the content creators deserve to make a little money for their time and effort. You don't have to watch the ads. Just mute the sound and watch something else while the ad runs.