Krebs on Security 2 weeks ago

Who’s Tracking You? Use This New Service to Find Out

It can be daunting to determine who’s responsible for showing ads on the websites we visit, or who’s harvesting data from the mobile apps we use every day. That information is already semi-public, but it is not easily parsed and traditionally much of it has remained walled away in the hands of large advertising platforms. Not anymore: A powerful and free new service called DecryptAds scrapes and correlates this adtech data and makes it simple to quickly learn a great deal about the entities that are tracking you. A Decryptads summary of the advertising partnerships declared by espn.com. The newly launched decryptads.com says it is constantly scraping the files that websites and apps make publicly available to disclose the companies that are permitted to run ads or collect user data. These files include: – ads.txt : all of the adtech companies and data brokers that may run ads or harvest data from the site; – app-ads.txt : entities that can harvest data from or display ads on mobile and smart TV apps; – buyers.json/sellers.json : the entities buying, selling or reselling ad inventory for a given site or app. Zach Edwards is chief research officer for DecryptAds and a threat researcher at the security company Infoblox . Edwards said he and two other founders decided the service was needed because the adtech data in these files is generally only useful when it can be cross-referenced to build a more complete picture of the advertising ecosystem for each website or app. “It’s an adtech tool but we’re trying to approach adtech from a security perspective,” Edwards said. “It’s really built for a lot of privacy and security use cases that have been dramatically underserved.” Those use cases, he said, include tracking down the source of malicious ads that try to foist malware on targeted users, identifying ad networks located in adversarial nations, and detecting the fast growing swarms of AI-generated slop websites and apps. And as decryptads.com demonstrates, these potential security and privacy threats are near impossible to detect just by viewing a single apps.txt or app-ads.txt file. “Supply-chain integrity issues rarely live in a single file,” the site explains . “They show up as broken cross-references between ads.txt, app-ads.txt, and sellers.json files; as cloned declaration sets across unrelated domains; as seller removals that only make sense when viewed across exchanges; and even as supply paths in bid logs that never actually appear in any given publisher’s authorized-seller list.” A search in DecryptAds for the hugely popular sports network espn.com reveals 143 ad partners and 19 registered data broker domains are listed within its ads.txt and app-ads.txt files. That data broker information is gradually becoming available because four states — California, Oregon, Texas and Vermont — have recently passed laws requiring data brokers to register if they buy or sell data on consumers from those states. DecryptAds reports that almost half of those data brokers are collecting geolocation data from espn.com visitors who aren’t blocking ads, while another three disclose that they collect device fingerprints and sensitive personal information. A visual representation of the complex ad supply chain declared by espn.com. Image: decryptads.com. DecryptAds also makes it easy to learn the beneficiaries and national origins of the advertising firms lurking in apps and websites, displaying a conspicuous warning when adtech partners of an app or website are based in “geo-risk” areas like China and Russia, or in countries with strong financial and political ties to both — such as Cyprus and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). According to DecryptAds, espn.com works with four different advertising entities that are based in either Russia, China or the UAE, including the adtech firm Between Digital , which lists a New York address. However, the dossier on Between Digital flags them as a Russian firm, showing that their publisher offers (PDF) are processed through Alfa Bank , Russia’s largest private commercial bank and one of several financial institutions placed under U.S. sanctions in 2022 after Russia invaded Ukraine. KrebsOnSecurity sought comment from both Between Digital and the company’s founder, and will update this story in the event that either replies. A search for several top U.S. military news websites — including armytimes.com , airforcetimes.com , defensenews.com , navytimes.com , marinecorpstimes.com and federaltimes.com — shows they all allow Between Digital to serve ads and track users, as well as two entities in the UAE and another in the ownership secrecy haven of Panama. DecryptAds reports that Between Digital is collecting ad data on approximately 55,000 partner websites. The “Geo Risk” section of decryptads.com. Pivoting on Between Digital’s app-ads.txt file reveals hundreds of domains featuring simple web-based games that are frequently interrupted by ads. Edwards said Between Digital’s own declarations show the company is listed as both a publisher and a reseller on approximately two-thirds of their portfolio. “It means they are basically playing both sides of the bidding equation, which creates opportunities to direct client spend at your owned and operated properties or client infrastructure, essentially creating opportunities for conflicts of interest,” Edwards told KrebsOnSecurity. “The problem we have right now is that for years we’ve had almost no one policing these ads.txt and app-ads.txt files.” The Opera Web browser remains quite popular, and probably many users are unaware that since 2016 it has been majority owned and controlled by the Chinese company Kunlun Tech (the operational headquarters of Opera remain in Oslo, Norway). Opera.com’s profile at DecryptAds identifies 27 registered data brokers collecting information, including 15 adtech partners in the UAE, six in China, three in Cyprus, two in Russia and one each in Hong Kong and Ukraine. DecryptAds makes clear, however, that these companies represent just seven percent of the adtech partners specified in Opera.com’s ads.txt and app-ads.txt files. One feature of DecryptAds that sent this author down multiple hours-long research rabbit holes is its Legal Dossier lookup , which takes several minutes for each search but eventually churns out oodles of useful information about who owns a particular domain or app, when it was registered, and any aliases or relationships it may have to adtech companies and other websites or apps. For example, last month KrebsOnSecurity wrote about researchers from Bitsight who found that an extremely popular line of TV streaming sticks called H96 quietly rent out each user’s Internet connection to strangers. Bitsight also discovered that when these devices aren’t being used to stream pirated video content, they are spoofing themselves as mobile phones clicking ads on AI-generated slop websites . Bitsight concluded that the same Chinese company that made several of the malicious apps common to all of these H96 streaming sticks — the Fengwo Group — also also ran the network of ads and AI slop websites being clicked on by tens of thousands of these devices that are pretending to be mobile phones. Examples of ad landing pages linked to the Fengwo Group. These sites were designed to show ads only to H96 devices that were spoofing their device type as mobile phones. Image: Bitsight. A DecryptAds legal dossier on the (now dormant) Fengwo Group domain name for the AI slop website pictured on the left in the screenshot above ( medicalbeautyhub dot com ) shows it shares a seller ID ( 1674071 ) with a gaming website — giacoloredstones[.]com — which features yet another seller ID ( 103488000 ). Pivoting on that latter seller ID reveals hundreds of active websites within Russia’s Yandex ad system featuring extremely low-quality games or simple utilities that pepper visitors with ads. Edwards said that when advertising networks suspect a given advertiser is engaged in unauthentic clicks or displaying malicious ads, very often those networks will quietly remove the offender from their list of approved partners without letting anyone else know about their suspicions. This practice, he said, makes it easier for dodgy adtech firms to avoid accountability and continue victimizing others. To address that visibility gap, DecryptAds features a quiet removals feed that records and correlates all of the sellers.json removals across ad exchanges for the same seller domain or name. A screenshot of the Quiet Removals Feed at decryptads.com. “The way the adtech industry works, someone will write a report about ad fraud and only share it with their own clients and they won’t make it public,” Edwards said. “The ban is just removing them from the sellers.json file, but they told nobody. One day it was there, the next it was gone. So if you’re trying to navigate who is suspicious, that’s usually tough to do because there are a lot of adtech companies removing things all at once.” Malvertising, the term given to the practice of inserting malicious ads that foist malware or redirect visitors to phishing pages, remains an all-too-frequent occurrence in the modern adtech industry. But Edwards said these malicious ads are far more commonly found now on newly generated AI slop websites than on high traffic destinations that typically employ a variety of technologies and third party tools to quickly flag bad ads. “None of these slop AI content farms are paying for that kind of protection,” he said. “They’re just signing up the lowest quality partners, and it essentially becomes a greased rail to target the users of those sites with malicious ads. Most malvertising attacks don’t happen on espn.com or huffpost.com, but rather [on] some lower quality content farm and someone just went there because it came up in a search.” Edwards said the AI slop websites are populated with machine-generated blog posts and images, and cover a wide array of themes from home improvement and decorating to food recipes, hunting, cars and consumer technology. He said organizations that get hit with malicious ads are often at a loss for what to do next, unaware that in most cases the answer is one of the entities listed inside the website’s ads.txt or app-ads.txt file. “A lot of serious organizations are starting to understand that if we’re not breaking down this ad data, we’re not going to know who’s targeting government people with zero-click payloads on an almost daily basis,” he said. Edwards maintains that truly getting a handle on the malvertising and AI slop problems will require more data-sharing by the major ad networks. Specifically, he says those platforms do not broadly share what’s known as the “supply chain object” or SCO, structured data attached to each advertising bid request that lets buyers see every seller, reseller and intermediary involved in passing an ad impression from the publisher to the final buyer. “That SCO tells you who sold it or resold it, and who was the final entity that bought the impression that served that malware payload,” Edwards explained. “You may see the malicious zero-click redirection, but without the supply chain object — which is only served server side — you won’t know who targeted your people with malware and won’t have a way to try and prevent it properly. But if we can encourage the adtech industry to expose that SCO, it will get easier to find the culprit behind any one bad ad.” DecryptAds also offers an application programming interface (API) that allows researchers to automate queries and integrate the site’s functionality into popular AI platforms. The only sane reaction to the examples described above is to block all online ads outright. This approach is broadly endorsed by security experts because it also makes it more difficult for adtech firms and data brokers to build detailed profiles on you and track your movements around the web and in the real world. However, much depends on how you normally prefer to browse the Internet, and how much trust you place in third party browser plugins and extensions. For those primarily surfing via a regular desktop or laptop Web browser, uBlock Origin Lite is an excellent free and well-maintained open source option. uBlock Origin also should work with mobile browsers like Firefox, but apparently only on Android-based devices. Adblock Plus is a decent option for iPhone and iPad users. For power users, Adblock and uBlock Origin both support custom blocking rules from easylist.to , which publishes a frequently updated list that removes most advertisements from webpages. The well established browser extension NoScript blocks all non-approved Javascript code, and it generally does a fine job blocking most ads from loading. However, script blockers like NoScript may not be suitable for average users who don’t enjoy constantly having to referee which scripts should be allowed to load so that each site displays properly. More technically inclined/adventuresome readers should strongly consider a hardware approach to blocking ads at the local network level, because that is easily the cheapest, most secure and scalable way to do it. A tiny, low-cost and broadly available computer known as a Raspberry Pi can be turned into a powerful ad blocker for all devices on a local network when fitted with a microSD memory card and a free program called Pi-hole . Once you’ve set it up properly and changed your router’s network settings to use the Pi-hole’s DNS sinkhole and DHCP servers, it should prevent ads from displaying on any devices connected to that network. Bear in mind that ad blockers often do little to block ads and/or tracking that occurs from within mobile apps that users have chosen to install on their devices. Many websites now push users to install a mobile app, supposedly in order to more fully access and enjoy the site’s services and content. But in my experience, they’re not doing this because the user experience is somehow way better on the app (as LinkedIn tries to convince us non-app users several times a week via email). On the contrary, I find most mobile apps to be horribly designed, annoying, and/or completely unnecessary, and when given the option I will almost always choose to interact with a website or service directly in a Web browser. No, the cold truth is that big web destinations tend to get pushy with their apps because they make it easier for these companies to keep you on their platforms longer and to collect (and in many cases resell) far more precise data about who, what and where their users are. Also, companies pushing customers the hardest to install mobile apps always seem to liberally opt everyone in to having their data used to train large language models these days. So be cautious about the apps you install on your mobile devices ( including any smart TVs! ), and poke around their listings at DecryptAds if you want to learn more about their privacy practices and any relationships they may have to adtech firms.

JSON Privacy JavaScript Security Data

ava's blog 3 months ago

privacy is becoming even more of a privilege

I've been thinking more about the future we might be heading towards if things continue the way they do, relatively unstopped, especially in regards to data harvesting and leaks, and how digitalized our society continues to become. I wonder if we are simply headed for a society in which there is bleak acceptance and normalization of most pieces of information being out there already. Everything you put out there voluntarily/openly (like a blog, or social media) and the things passively collected about you (via your devices) being trained on, analyzed, in some database that cannot withstand the latest AI release or whatever, together with vibecoded insecure software. Your cloud, your social media posts, your DMs, your purchase history on different platforms, health data in your eFile, the journal entries you did in that aesthetic journaling app, the poop pictures you gave to an AI app to analyze, the recordings of your Alexa and smart TV, etc. that all may or may not be combined. We have lost so many of the previous barriers. Compared to previous times in history, many things aren't automatically private in your own home, or just saved in just people's brains anymore. Less and less things are exclusively physically in some cabinet you have to locate and get several keys for or lie your way in (social engineering) for. Digital things are written down and stored in a more accessible way, and while there is a metaphorical door, it can be broken down from anywhere in the world, and you no longer need to rely on pressuring things out of people or enduring any of the prep and risk of a physical break in. Your home can be broken into from half the planet away. All of this is making secrecy and privacy hard; it is all a technology arms race. Data protection and privacy is only seen as a hindrance, an annoyance in the eyes of many. Unnecessary when things are going fine until they aren't. It's annoying when a website asks you to consent, but it's suddenly important when you need to know what data a company still has from you, or when there's a breach. I see privacy laws overall being weakened, employees in those teams, authorities and organizations terminated, all because data is the new gold, or an even better oil. I see the EU trying to use our rights and data as a bargaining chip for US travel and exports. As usual, human rights stand in the way of big money. Historically, we are used to seeing the privacy of the rich as something rather physical; they move to gated communities, or land in bumfuck nowhere, to have no neighbors and peace from paparazzi and weird stalkers. They get to have certain media pulled from the shelves when it is not favorable to them. Increasingly, we have seen them remove digital content: Blog posts, Reddit threads, specific images and videos, stats tracking their whereabouts, meetings and flights. Unfortunately, the richer you are, the more protection of your data and privacy you can buy. You can see it even now: We need to give up so much information just to travel and pass airport checks, down to social media checks or the EU bartering over sharing biometric data with the US for EU travellers. Meanwhile, Taylor Swift and Elon Musk can restrict the activity of their private jets. They can obscure or limit their real-time location exposure, acquire surrounding properties to create buffer zones, forbid aerial photography and maritime tracking around their properties, tighten security around family information and their children’s identities, can afford security teams and compartmentalized travel arrangements, can subject others to NDA's, and influence powerful government officials - can you do the same? As you are told you need these devices with all these data mining features, all these privacy-disrespecting apps and LLMs, all these social media accounts to be successful, or happy, or organized, or be seen and loved, or get a chance at an additional income stream or fame, they are already rich and known enough. They get to be private, not overshare on socials, and leave posting and taking calls and messages to their assistants. It's okay for them not to be overly online and active. They probably get to be exempt from their own companies' tracking for "security reasons", despite using the same products. They know the data their services mine is harmful if you have a stalker or abuser; they only care if it affects them, though. And think of the legal repertoire they have when they have their likeness stolen, deepfakes of their voice and visual characteristics made in a way that harms them. You don't have the same options. When data leaks that makes you uninteresting to employers, you have to potentially live with that; they are the employers. Continuing on, having any privacy will be even more of a privilege. It is maddening, because very rich and powerful techbros like Musk, Altman, Zuckerberg, etc. get rich off of our data that we can no longer afford to protect against them, eventually always funding their dominance over us, and enabling their own exemption status in this data mining society. They benefit from collecting and analyzing information at industrial scale while attempting to selectively limit information flowing the other direction. In their ideal little world, they don't invest it back into us; they use it to further fund AI replacement workers, weapons, and their doomsday bunkers away from us all. It makes me wonder if we will end up in a society where people will deliver as much information up front as they deem necessary to be in control of the narrative and tell themselves they have not been spied on and instead have shared it voluntarily in an act of bravery. Reply via email Published 16 May, 2026

Security Data Swift Privacy

iDiallo 9 months ago

Making a quiet stand with your privacy settings

After making one of the largest refactor of our application, one that took several months in the making, where we tackled some of our biggest challenges. We tackled technical debt, upgraded legacy software, fortified security, and even made the application faster. After all that, we deployed the application, and held our breath, waiting for the user feedback to roll in. Well, nothing came in. There were no celebratory messages about the improved speed, no complaints about broken features, no comments at all. The deployment was so smooth it was invisible. To the business team, it initially seemed like we had spent vast resources for no visible return. But we knew the underlying truth. Sometimes, the greatest success is defined not by what happens, but by what doesn't happen. The server that doesn't crash. The data breach that doesn't occur. The user who never notices a problem. This is the power of a quiet, proactive defense. In this digital world, where everything we do leaves a data point, it's not easy to recognize success. When it comes to privacy, taking a stand isn't dramatic. In fact, its greatest strength is its silence. We're conditioned to believe that taking a stand should feel significant. We imagine a public declaration, a bold button that flashes "USER REBELLION INITIATED!" when pressed. Just think about people publicly announcing they are leaving a social media platform. But the reality of any effective digital self-defense is far more mundane. When I disagree with a website's data collection, I simply click "Reject All." No fanfare. No message telling the company, "This user is privacy-conscious!" My resistance is registered as a non-action. A void in their data stream. When I read that my Vizio Smart TV was collecting viewing data, I navigated through a labyrinth of menus to find the "Data Collection" setting and turned it off. The TV kept working just fine. Nothing happened, except that my private viewing habits were no longer becoming a product to be sold. They didn't add a little icon on the top corner that signifies "privacy-conscious." Right now, many large language models like ChatGPT have "private conversation" settings turned off by default. When I go into the settings and enable the option that says, "Do not use my data for training," there's no confirmation, no sense of victory. It feels like I've done nothing. But I have. This is how proactive inaction looks like. Forming a new habit is typically about adding an action. Going for a run every morning, drinking a glass of water first thing, reading ten pages a night. But what about the habit of not doing ? When you try to simply "not eat sugar," you're asking your brain to form a habit around an absence. There's no visible behavior to reinforce, no immediate sensory feedback to register success, and no clear routine to slot into the habit loop. Instead, you're relying purely on willpower. A finite resource that depletes throughout the day, making evening lapses almost inevitable. Your brain literally doesn't know what to practice when the practice is "nothing." It's like trying to build muscle by not lifting weights. The absence of action creates an absence of reinforcement, leaving you stuck in a constant battle of conscious resistance rather than unconscious automation. Similarly, the habit of not accepting default settings is a habit of inaction. You are actively choosing to not participate in a system designed to exploit your data. It's hard because it lacks the dopamine hit of a checked box. There's no visible progress bar for "Privacy Secured." But the impact is real. This quiet practice is our primary defense against what tech writer Cory Doctorow calls "enshittification". That's the process where platforms decay by first exploiting users, then business customers, until they become useless, ad-filled pages with content sprinkled around. It's also our shield against hostile software that prioritizes its own goals over yours. Not to blame the victims, but I like to remind people that they have agency over the software and tools they use. And your agency includes the ultimate power to walk away. If a tool's settings are too hostile, if it refuses to respect your "no," then your most powerful setting is the "uninstall" button. Choosing not to use a disrespectful app is the ultimate, and again, very quiet, stand. So, I challenge everyone to embrace the quiet. See the "Reject All" button not as a passive refusal, but as an active shield. See the hidden privacy toggle not as a boring setting, but as a toggle that you actively search for. The next time you download a new app or create a new account, take five minutes. Go into the settings. Look for "Privacy," "Data Sharing," "Personalization," or "Permissions." Turn off what you don't need. Nothing will happen. Your feed won't change, the app won't run slower, and no one will send you a congratulatory email. And that's the whole point. You will have succeeded in the same way our refactor succeeded: by ensuring something unwanted doesn't happen. You've strengthened your digital walls, silently and without drama, and in doing so, you've taken one of the most meaningful stands available to us today.

Privacy Security

iDiallo 9 months ago

Why I Remain a Skeptic Despite Working in Tech

One thing that often surprises my friends and family is how tech-avoidant I am. I don't have the latest gadget, I talk about dumb TVs, and Siri isn't activated on my iPhone. The only thing left is to go to the kitchen, take a sheet of tin foil, and mold it into a hat. To put it simply, I avoid tech when I can. The main reason for my skepticism is that I don't like tracking technology. I can't stop it, I can't avoid it entirely, but I will try as much as I can. Take electric cars, for example. I get excited to see new models rolling out. But over-the-air updates freak me out. Why? Because I'm not the one in control of them. Modern cars now receive software updates wirelessly, similar to smartphones. These over-the-air updates can modify everything from infotainment systems to critical driving functions like powertrain systems, brakes, and advanced driver assistance systems. While this technology offers convenience, it also introduces security concerns, hackers could potentially gain remote access to vehicle systems. The possibility for a hostile take over went from 0 to 1. I buy things from Amazon. It's extremely convenient. But I don't feel comfortable having a microphone constantly listening. They may say that they don't listen to conversations, but you can't respond to a command without listening . It does use some trigger words to activate, but they still occasionally accidentally activate and start recording. Amazon acknowledges that it employs thousands of people worldwide to listen to Alexa voice recordings and transcribe them to improve the AI's capabilities. In 2023, the FTC fined Amazon $31 million for violating children's privacy laws by keeping kids' Alexa voice recordings indefinitely and undermining parents' deletion requests. The same thing with Siri. Apple likes to brag about their privacy features, but they still paid $95 million in a Siri eavesdropping settlement . Vizio TVs take screenshots from 11 million smart TVs and sell viewing data to third parties without users' knowledge or consent. The data is bundled with personal information including sex, age, income, marital status, household size, education level, and home value, then sold to advertisers. The FTC fined Vizio $2.2 million in 2017, but by then the damage was done. This technology isn't limited to Vizio. Most smart TV manufacturers use similar tracking. ACR can analyze exactly what's on your screen regardless of source, meaning your TV knows when you're playing video games, watching Blu-rays, or even casting home movies from your phone. In 2023, Tesla faced a class action lawsuit after reports revealed that employees shared private photos and videos from customer vehicle cameras between 2019 and 2022. The content included private footage from inside customers' garages. One video that circulated among employees showed a Tesla hitting a child on a bike . Tesla's privacy notice states that "camera recordings remain anonymous and are not linked to you or your vehicle," yet employees clearly had access to identify and share specific footage. Amazon links every Alexa interaction to your account and uses the data to profile you for targeted advertising. While Vizio was ordered to delete the data it collected, the court couldn't force third parties who purchased the data to delete it. Once your data is out there, you've lost control of it forever. For me, a technological device that I own should belong to me, and me only. But for some reason, as soon as we add the internet to any device, it stops belonging to us. The promise of smart technology is convenience and innovation. The reality is surveillance and monetization. Our viewing habits, conversations, and driving patterns are products being sold without our meaningful consent. I love tech, and I love solving problems. But as long as I don't have control of the devices I use, I'll remain a tech skeptic. One who works from the inside, hoping to build better solutions. The industry needs people who question these practices, who push back against normalized surveillance, and who remember that technology should serve users, not exploit them. Until then, I'll keep my TV dumb, my Siri disabled, and be the annoying family member who won't join your facebook group.

Security Privacy

neilzone 11 months ago

What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the entire world?

I am very much enjoying my newly-resurrected hobby of Airsoft. Running around in the woods, firing small plastic pellets at other people, in pursuit of a contrived-to-be-fun mission, turns out to be, well, fun. I have also had to accept that, for some other players, part of that fun comes from making videos of their game days, and uploading them to YouTube. They often have quite impressive setups, with multiple cameras - head, rear-facing from barrel of weapon, and scope cam - and clearly put time, money, and effort into doing this. Great! Just like someone taking photos on their holidays, or when out and about, I can see the fun in it. It is the “non-consensually publishing it online for the world to see” aspect which bugs me a bit. In the handful of games that I have played, no-one has ever asked about consent of other participants. There has been no “put on this purple lanyard if you don’t want to be included in the public version of the video” rule, which I’ve seen work pretty well at conferences I have attended (even if it is opt-out rather than consent). I could, I suppose, ask each person that I see with a camera “would you mind not including me in anything you upload, please?”. And, since everyone with whom I’ve spoken at games, so far anyway, has been perfectly pleasant and friendly, I’d be hopeful that they would at least consider my request. I have not done this. The impression I get is that this is just seen as part and parcel of the hobby: by running around in the woods of northern Newbury on a Sunday morning, I need to accept that I may well appear on YouTube, for the world to see. I don’t love it, but it is not a big enough deal for me to make a fuss. I occasionally see people saying “well, if you don’t want to be in photos published online, don’t be in public spaces”. This is nonsense, for a number of reasons. Clearly, one should be able to exist in society, including going outside one’s own home, without needing to accept this kind of thing. In any case, here, the issue is somewhat different, since it is a private site, where people engage in private activity (a hobby). But then I’ve seen the same at (private) conferences, with people saying “Of course I’m free to take photos of identifiable individuals without their consent and publish them online”. Publishing someone’s photo online, without their consent, without another strong justification, just because they happen to be in view of one’s camera lens, feels wrong to me. This isn’t about what is legal (although, in some cases, claims of legality may be poorly conceived), but around my own perceptions of a private life, and a dislike for the fact that, just because one can publish such things, that one should .

Privacy Entertainment Gaming

Vitalik Buterin 1 years ago

Why I support privacy

Privacy Security

Danny McClelland 1 years ago

Privacy

I believe privacy is a fundamental right, and I’ve designed this blog to respect yours. What I Track This blog uses Umami Analytics to collect minimal, anonymous page view data. I track this information solely to understand which content resonates with readers, helping me focus my design and writing efforts on what’s genuinely valuable to my audience. What I collect: Page views and basic navigation patterns General geographic regions (country level only) Referrer information (which site led you here) Device type (desktop, mobile, tablet) What I don’t collect: