3 ms·
This wouldn't give us any more privacy. It would just become another signal in the tracker's model, they wouldn't solely rely on it. Cookies were the same idea
by Paul-ish 10y ago
This wouldn't give us any more privacy. It would just become another signal in the tracker's model, they wouldn't solely rely on it. Cookies were the same idea limited to a single website. We were told to clear our cookies and we could prevent tracking. We have seen what cookies have become, with zombie cookies[1][2] raising from the dead after we think they are gone. At the end of the day, advertisers and trackers didn't really want us to have the capability to reset our identity with them.
If you try to change the ID, trackers will use other things to try to keep tracking your browser session.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_cookie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_cookie
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evercookie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evercookie
- manigandham 10y agoThe functionality (and corresponding machine implementation) matrix of a user will always give enough entropy to construct an identity, but much of this was created because of the lack of any other reliable and stable option. A stable ID would definitely be used since services now spend a considerable amount of time and effort in constantly figuring it out through other means. A single website is too narrow since things like ad networks (which are the economic backbone of the web) work across many sites. A single root domain is an outdated isolation model on the modern web. Outside of that, the only other answer is regulation. Something that is missing in many areas although some countries seem to be making good progress.