4 ms·

To be clear: Yes we should fight fingerprinting... But: I don't care if only 5% of internet users are uniquely identifiable. I care if I am uniquely identifiab

by csours 8y ago

To be clear: Yes we should fight fingerprinting... But: I don't care if only 5% of internet users are uniquely identifiable. I care if I am uniquely identifiable.

mhneu 8y ago
The article mentions that the biggest impact comes from limiting the highest-entropy information. It wouldn't be hard to rank the various attributes by entropy and then you - individually - could calculate the probability that you'd be uniquely identifiable. Seems like such work would be valuable.
guelo 8y ago
Dropping the average number means that trackers make less money which means that they have less resources to invest in tracking which means that there's less of a chance that you specifically will be tracked.
bluGill 8y ago
As the % of users that are identifiable drops eventually the value isn't worth the cost. If only 5% is identifiable that is enough that it won't be done. Note that identifiable comes is degrees. If they can't tell me from my wife that doesn't matter for most purposes.
Iolaum 8y ago
If you are not uniquely identifiable but 99% of the users are that's enough to identify you. That's why US Navy funded the tor project. If their people were the only ones that could hide from other governments then those other governments knew who those unidentified people were.
- meowface 8y ago
  This is also a big issue with NoScript and similar plugins. A very small percentage of real users (ignoring bots and headless browsers and such) intentionally disable JavaScript, so they're painting a target on themselves while trying to do the opposite.
  - Drdrdrq 8y ago
    Well, NoScript (and uMatrix) help with security too, so it might still be a good idea to use them.
    - meowface 8y ago
      For sure. I use NoScript for browser security, not for fingerprint protection. I would still definitely recommend people use NoScript/uMatrix/etc. It's just an unfortunate side effect.
  - mikedilger 8y ago
    This is true. However, most users of NoScript/uMatrix/uBlock are blocking the script that actually does the fingerprinting. So while the server could infer information because the script didn't run, usually they get no notification and tracking simply fails.
    - progval 8y ago
      For once, let's thank web developers who assume everyone has javascript enabled.

by csours 8y ago

To be clear: Yes we should fight fingerprinting... But: I don't care if only 5% of internet users are uniquely identifiable. I care if I am uniquely identifiable.

mhneu 8y ago

The article mentions that the biggest impact comes from limiting the highest-entropy information. It wouldn't be hard to rank the various attributes by entropy and then you - individually - could calculate the probability that you'd be uniquely identifiable. Seems like such work would be valuable.

guelo 8y ago

Dropping the average number means that trackers make less money which means that they have less resources to invest in tracking which means that there's less of a chance that you specifically will be tracked.

bluGill 8y ago

As the % of users that are identifiable drops eventually the value isn't worth the cost. If only 5% is identifiable that is enough that it won't be done. Note that identifiable comes is degrees. If they can't tell me from my wife that doesn't matter for most purposes.

Iolaum 8y ago

If you are not uniquely identifiable but 99% of the users are that's enough to identify you. That's why US Navy funded the tor project. If their people were the only ones that could hide from other governments then those other governments knew who those unidentified people were.

meowface 8y ago
This is also a big issue with NoScript and similar plugins. A very small percentage of real users (ignoring bots and headless browsers and such) intentionally disable JavaScript, so they're painting a target on themselves while trying to do the opposite.
- Drdrdrq 8y ago
  Well, NoScript (and uMatrix) help with security too, so it might still be a good idea to use them.
  - meowface 8y ago
    For sure. I use NoScript for browser security, not for fingerprint protection. I would still definitely recommend people use NoScript/uMatrix/etc. It's just an unfortunate side effect.
- mikedilger 8y ago
  This is true. However, most users of NoScript/uMatrix/uBlock are blocking the script that actually does the fingerprinting. So while the server could infer information because the script didn't run, usually they get no notification and tracking simply fails.
  - progval 8y ago
    For once, let's thank web developers who assume everyone has javascript enabled.