On 06/12/2015 01:03 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote: > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:38:35PM -0600, jd1008 wrote: >> I was just using that as an example of damaging javascripts. >> The current version of noscript no longer tells the number of >> javascrits that are blocked out of the total (per web site). >> In the older versions, I would dlete all entries in the visible >> whitelist, and would visit new websites. It would list some >> n javascripts blocked out of m scripts. >> Clicking on 'options' tab on bottom, I would not see the >> 'allowed' scripts listed. > So, you're scaring people away from a privacy-enhancing tool with > unprovable claims of a hidden whitelist? Which I can't find in the > javascript source of the XPI? Also, based on your conversations with > someone who worked at a company that hasn't existed since 2009? > > I get it, you've got some concerns about the security of the web > model. But adjust your tin foil hat, you're picking up Fox News on > that thing. > > For the record, I use NoScript, Ghostery and uBlock, and am happy with > the experience (for the most part). > > I also heavily use Firefox profiles, and only use a completely > separate profile for certain operations, such as online banking. I've > been playing with using the SELinux sandbox program too, but its just > too convenient to be able to copy-paste into firefox, which sandbox > blocks. I don't use the same profile fo Facebook (*sigh*, yeah) and > just random browsing. I'm certain that a certain amount of private > information leaks out when I'm browsing forums or catching up with the > news, but unfortunately, that's the tax you pay when you use the web. > > I'm fairly certain that io9.com isn't reading /etc/shadow on my > computer. > :) LOL Enjoy your perception of security and privacy :)