*there

Another example relating to tracking ad targets, also known as "users":

"Around September 2024, Meta developed a creative solution to evade Androids sandboxing restrictions. (Id. 4849, 52.) Devices have localhost ports, which simulate a communications channel by allowing applications or services running on the device to communicate with each other... without those communications leaving the device. (Id. 53.) Meta modified its Pixel code (the Modified Pixel) so that it would send the _fbp cookies contents to a designated localhost port. (Id. 55.) In turn, Meta modified its Facebook and Instagram apps to listen to that localhost port for incoming data. (Id.) The Facebook and Instagram apps combined any incoming localhost data with personal information and identifiers, and subsequently shipped that combined data from the users Android device to its own servers. (Id.) As a result, even though Meta would typically have a harder time identifying Android users, Meta was now able to perfectly deanonymize Android users browsing activity if they used its apps. (Id.)

Meta's conduct was unknown until a group of internet security researchers disclosed it on June 3, 2025. (Id. 4; Dkt. No. 104-3.)

Shortly after the researchers public disclosure, Meta announced that it decided to pause use of this tracking method. (Id. 69; Dkt. No. 104-4 at 5.)

In this consolidated action, Plaintiffs assert nine claims against Meta: ... (3) violation of the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2511(1); (4) violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Acts (CIPA) wiretapping provisions, Cal. Penal Code 631; (5) violation of CIPAs eavesdropping provisions, Cal. Penal Code 632; (6) violation of CIPAs eavesdropping device provisions, Cal. Penal Code 635; ... Plaintiffs assert an additional two claims against Google: negligence and negligent misrepresentation.

Plaintiffs CIPA pen register, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation claims are DISMISSED. Dismissal is with LEAVE TO AMEND because the Court cannot conclude on the current record that amendment would be futile. All other claims survive dismissal."

The above is an excerpt from In re Meta Android Privacy Litigation (3:25-cv-04674, N.D. Cal., June 3, 2025)

https://dn711508.ca.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.cand.45...

https://dn711508.ca.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.cand.45...

Of course Meta will eventually settle, like Google did in Brown v Google, in Google's case on the eve of trial. The wiretapping claims would be catastrophic for these companies

But the Court's observations are interesting

"At this early stage in the case, and given the undeniably significant portion of mobile phones using Apples iOS, it is reasonable to infer an industry custom of placing tight controls on communications between apps based on Apples restrictions."

"followed up by someone with 5k karma"

Incorrect. Maybe the reply was made in haste

Anytime a comment of mine receives lots of upvoites thare will always be some snarky replies. It's almost guaranteed

These will sometimes include personal attacks

Note all I did here was relate a personal anecdote: I'm not using "AI". HN commenters do this every day, many times off-topic

I expressed no opinion. I did not make any argument, prediction or "recommendation". All I did was state a fact, 100% on-topic

It's a TCP client

curl is an HTTP client

I prefer TCP clients to HTTP clients. Simpler, easier to modify, faster to compile

There are many to choose from. For example, I use a modified version of tcploop

For generating HTTP, I use own utilties. This is more flexible than curl. There are some things curl cannot do, even though it has too many options

It's URL prefixing

Vivaldi claims they don't collect data from "Direct Match"

No way to verify this claim is true but that's beside the point. It's another web browser sending traffic to it's own servers

Vivaldi is Chromium-based

This week an "I'm quitting" blog post from a former Mozilla employee was on the HN front page. He more or less recommended Vivaldi, i.e., Chromium

The problem of advertising is not solved by choice of browser vendor where _all_ the vendors are trying to make money from ad services, partnerships with Google, affiliate marketing, cryptocurrency, etc.

"Not as bad as Chrome" is a pathetically low bar to meet

These browsers take longer to compile than an operating system. Absurd complexity and vulnerability

The Vivaldi default settings are just as bad as any other so-called "modern" browser, i.e., they have to be changed

It's a fool's errand to compare these browsers to each other. They have far more similarities than differences. They all suck

What are some examples

I observe the contrary among the sites submitted to HN

Without access to other subdomains and other domains plus a Javascript interpreter, the ads and tracking don't work

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48566039

Points: 4

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48565513

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48565489

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48565443

Points: 1

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48564566

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48564014

Points: 5

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48563956

Points: 12

# Comments: 5

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48563933

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

That "keep the web open" nonsense is a myth, spread by Mozilla press releases

People who use Firefox, not all of them, "keep open internet [read: www] alive"

If Firefox exists and does the job for them, then they'll use it. These users write the add-ons to do "ad blocking", not Mozilla

If Mozilla closes the door on "ad blockers" then these users will move to another solution, maybe a Firefox fork, maybe a non-browser method, who knows

Mozilla gets ripped because ultimately they are "in it for the money", not Firefox users, and the money, they believe, is in online ad services. Mozilla advocates for having all www content supported by ads. Effectively they advocate for companies like Google

By pure coincidence I'm sure, Mozilla relies on dollars from Google to line their own (management's) pockets. Without an ad services company like Google to partner with, Mozilla's business, sending search queries and possibly other data about Firefox users to Google, cannot survive

But Mozilla communications reframes this operation as something like "we take money from advertising services companies like Google to keep the web open"

Except they will not mention the money from Google part

Then they will lead off press releases with some bizarre assumption like "a healthy online ads ecosystem is essential for the www to exist"

This might make sense to Mozilla but it makes no sense for www users who don't like ads

No CAPTCHA, no Javascript, no geo-blocking, no DDoS shenanigans

   x='GET /finance-and-economics/2026/06/15/meet-the-worlds-top-ai-pilled-economists HTTP/1.0\r\n'
   y='host: www.economist.com\r\n'
   z='user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 14) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.6533.103 Mobile Safari/537.36 Liskov\r\n\r\n'
   (printf "$x$y$z";sleep 3) \
   |bssl client -connect 104.18.42.19:443 -server-name economist.com > 1.htm
   firefox ./1.htm
   #links 1.htm

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48554600

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48550917

Points: 4

# Comments: 2

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48549979

Points: 2

# Comments: 0