I sure didn't intend to be argumentative, and as I said, I do think you are right, the fingerprinting example is flawed just as you point out. I was only consi

I sure didn't intend to be argumentative, and as I said, I do think you are right, the fingerprinting example is flawed just as you point out. I was only considering the calculations in the abstract, as representing how such algorithms might be used by a real entity attempting to track its users. I was putting myself in the place of the tracker and imagining how I'd deal with the issues you brought up. I certainly do not and never have done any such thing on the servers I run in real life. A year or so ago when I was first aware of the Panopticlick site, I was impressed with how easy it was to more or less uniquely identify my browser. I tried numerous ways to make it less unique. Best I could do at the time was reduce the "entropy" from 22 to 15 or so. Even though I knew these results were hypothetical, it was still educational. So the Panopticlick site makes its point even if it's not 100% accurate. How much it scares people is hard to say, but probably not a lot. Bottom line is I've been aware that fingerprinting could be happening, but also not a whole lot to do to reduce my browser's uniqueness. Obviously, it hasn't stopped me from getting on the web anyway.