9 ms·
Google can ID your web browser uniquely. If you've ever logged in to Google just once in your lifetime, they know it's you forever. They cross it with your loc
by comportboy 9y ago
Google can ID your web browser uniquely. If you've ever logged in to Google just once in your lifetime, they know it's you forever.
They cross it with your location, your movements, your emails, expenses, everything.
There is no single more spooky company than Google.
- code_duck 9y agoAs demoed on EFF’s Panopticlick site, anyone can. My browser tests as unique and it’s stock Safari on an iPhone.
- dunham 9y agoDoes it test as unique on subsequent visits?
- code_duck 9y agoWith subsequent visits I get “one in 339162.0 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours” and so forth, with the number decreasing each time. Clearing cookies makes no difference - the hash of WebGL and Canvas fingerprints stay the same.
- sdiepend 9y ago:( Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,357,338 tested so far.
- Retric 9y ago1 in 1,357,338 could easily be 10,000+ devices considering how fast these fingerprints change and how many users are out there. Geographic location is a much larger issue.
- cinquemb 9y agoI know this is probably going to sound like magic to some, but you know, one can control, if they so choose to, what one's browser (if one uses a FOSS browser) sends over the network by modifying the code and recompiling it for oneself…
- mercora 9y agoi bet disabling these features make you stick out even more ;D
- cinquemb 9y agoWho said anything about disabling… some actors spoof information all the time to appear as if they are somewhere/someone else or even a someone (bots) in the first place. On the topic of disabling, if one disabled javascript by default, one would get the immediate effect of not seeing most of the advertising on the web (outside of submarine articles). I bet people telling others that they "need" this shit to use the web probably has significant overlap with those who say they "need" Facebook (or any other random app) or else there would be no other way to find events or things to do. Like without facebook groups, one would die! lol
- a_imho 9y agoIndeed, obfuscation and sending noise is one obvious countermeasure and that space needs more exploring. Google banned Adnauseam on Chrome just for tinkering with the idea.
- singularity2001 9y agowhile theoretically possible there are enough people monitoring Google's JavaScript to make sure that they will never use fingerprinting on you. Or do they?
- singularity2001 9y agoCan someone please revive Random Agent Spoofer?
- chopin 9y agoIt's better to switch off JavaScript. Try panopticlick with and without it.
- mercora 9y agoi just tried but sadly it did not finish without allowing js on their site and for both of the thirdparty tests. It might would have finished if i would not have enabled this test though. However, even if it would show better results then my user agent and accept header is apprently pretty unique anyhow. But why bother.. My ip addresses do not change that often.
- singularity2001 9y agoyes, noscript is a must, however not enough against fingerprinting
- code_duck 9y agoI assumed that all large sites use code like this to filter out fraudulent and abusive accounts.
- mehrdadn 9y agoYes, Google has all this information. No, it hasn't been as careless with it as Facebook. If that counts for nothing in your threat model then your model is useless and you're just spreading FUD.
- malvosenior 9y ago“Google is less evil than Facebook” is absolutely not something you should assume in your threat model.
- r00fus 9y agoWhile your statement is true, it's best to talk probabilties. If you calculate the likelihood that companyX is a) hoarding sensitive data about you AND b) isn't competent at securing said data, I'd rate Google as less of a threat because I estimate (b) is much less likely. The best way to win is not to play. I block cookies, scripts and also don't use FB or much of Google except search & email.
- gt_ 9y agoBeing “competent at securing your data” is useless when they are incentivized to utilize it. Usually, when an entity motivated against our best interests is considered “competent”, we calculate that they are more of a threat. This makes fine sense to me. Why would one reason differently about Google? It looks illogical to me. Google is a company. Google is optimized for profit, not data privacy. Quite the contrary, of course. And that isn’t changing any time soon. Right now, they have a lot of surplus, but that can change, which will effect the nature of their optimization’s. For that reason, we should consider the incentives since they are evidently the core motivation of Google’s behavior. If I’m not mistaken, you are encouraging others to trust an unrelated entity known to be incentivized against their best interests. Sounds like a tough sell to put it lightly.
- the_other 9y ago> ... much of Google except search & email. This reads like self-satire.
- nukeop 9y agoThere's so many things that can change your fingerprint that their methods are useless, unless you continue to use their products willingly and don't block their scripts. Without your willful participation, they are quite helpless.
- wyck 9y agoGeo-location is the scary metric, peoples habits / when/ where is a trove of data, it can be analyzed much more deeply.