The whole article seems to be based on this study: https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~maffeis/331/EffectivenessOfFingerprinting.pdf https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~maffeis/33

The whole article seems to be based on this study: https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~maffeis/331/EffectivenessOfFingerprinting.pdf https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~maffeis/331/EffectivenessOfFingerp... And sees it as an indicator that preventing fingerprinting is possible: Only a third of users had unique fingerprints, despite the researchers’ use of a comprehensive set of 17 fingerprinting attributes. To me, the 17 attributes do not seem comprehensive at all. For example they don't make use of the users IP. So much can be derived from the IP. Carrier, approximate location etc. They also don't use the local IP, which is leaked via WebRTC: https://browserleaks.com/webrtc https://browserleaks.com/webrtc They also don't seem to measure the performance of CPU, RAM and GPU when performing different tasks. But yes: Browsers should do more to prevent fingerprinting. But it seems they have no inclination to do so. That they don't plug the WebRTC hole that leaks the local IP is a strong indicator for me that privacy is low on the list of the browser vendors. Or maybe not on the list at all.