JavaScript considered harmful (was Re: New online index to Beazley's tutorials)

[Tim Lavoie]

In article <a1ev5r$hdl$1 at panix3.panix.com>, Aahz Maruch wrote:
> Note that I don't even call JavaScript evil.  I just point out how
> useless and dangerous JavaScript is, and let people draw their own
> conclusions.  ;-)  Seriously, my only objection to JavaScript is when
> it's *required*; ditto for cookies.  If people want to create a
> JavaScript-enhanced or cookie-enhanced browsing experience, that's fine
> with me.
> 
> As for the 1-pixel trick, turning off images deals with *that* problem
> (or, preferably for me, just using Lynx).  But, yeah, that's evil, and
> there's no simple solution other than designing a browser that warns you
> of off-site links (which I think some do).


Another option is to use filtering proxies such as Junkbuster, which
allow a more selective approach to controlling cookies, images and
other cruft. I tend to whack most ads, and all cookies, with the
allow-list to permit cookies on selected sites where needed. Perhaps
more limiting to the average user, but there are other options as
well. The alternative reccomended by junkbusters is a seperate company
called Guidescope, which is easier for the "typical" user. Both can
forward to another proxy, so for instance, I can use Junkbuster on my
PC, to forward to the corporate proxy to get out.

  links:

    http://www.junkbusters.com
    http://www.guidescope.com