3 ms·

I don't think a VPN is enough, it will mask your location but there are so many ways your browser can be fingerprinted so you would need to have fingerprint res

I don't think a VPN is enough, it will mask your location but there are so many ways your browser can be fingerprinted so you would need to have fingerprint resistant browser profile, maybe with JS off is possible.

gruez 7y ago
>so you would need to have fingerprint resistant browser profile easy. use firefox, open about:config, and set privacy.resistFingerprinting => true.
- _gtly 7y ago
  Easy to enable, but in practice not much help yet: For me, at least, I enabled resistFingerprinting and tested on https://panopticlick.eff.org https://panopticlick.eff.org. A unique fingerprint was still present. Test it yourself.
  - gruez 7y ago
    Right, that's why the setting is called resist fingerprinting. You still need to take other precautions like not full screening. A while ago I tested resistfingerprinting with a few machines and they all have the same fingerprint, so at least it's better than nothing. I tested with my browser and it was unique as well. It seems to be caused by high dpi monitor breaking the window size rounding logic. Retrying with high dpi disabled results in Within our dataset of several hundred thousand visitors tested in the past 45 days, only one in 5551.36 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours. Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 12.44 bits of identifying information. Maybe having resistfingerprinting is a fingerprinting datapoint itself?
  - saxonww 7y ago
    Check and make sure it's the same fingerprint across multiple runs. I installed CanvasBlocker, and one of the things it does is fake results for a handful of API calls. So while Panopticlick reports a unique fingerprint each time, it looks (to me, based on their results) like a different browser each time. In particular, the two most specific categories they track are canvas and webgl hashes. Those are changing every time, which I believe makes them less useful as tracking information; the next-most-specific thing is a list of fonts, which is almost two orders of magnitude less specific.
  - _emacsomancer_ 7y ago
    I don't fully understand panopticlick results. My machines always get uniquely identified by screen size (which I sort of understand, but find doubtful) and fonts installed. The latter I find very confusing since it often lists a set of garden variety Windows fonts, which I don't even have installed on my machine.
- blacksmith_tb 7y ago
  I still get failing marks in FF testing on panopticlick.eff.org with that set, though?
- simion314 7y ago
  As others said it is not as easy, you probably need a special browser profile that is very "extreme" with the privacy settings. I would suggest not over selling that Firefox setting.
  - kube-system 7y ago
    That still won't work. Most people don't have 'extreme' privacy settings, so you'll again be unique. To resist fingerprinting, you want your setup to be as generic as possible. This is one reason why it's important that browser vendors need to tackle this issue by setting privacy focused defaults.
Amezarak 7y ago
With NoScript on Firefox, I have 8.7 (???) bits of identifying information according to Panopticlick. I did not enable the about:config setting a sibling poster mentioned. According to the site, I am passing adblocking and fingerprinting, but not invisible trackers or DNT. > Within our dataset of several hundred thousand visitors tested in the past 45 days, only one in 417.05 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours. > Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 8.7 bits of identifying information. So yeah, pretty much all web privacy is broken by Javascript.

gruez 7y ago

>so you would need to have fingerprint resistant browser profile easy. use firefox, open about:config, and set privacy.resistFingerprinting => true.

_gtly 7y ago
Easy to enable, but in practice not much help yet: For me, at least, I enabled resistFingerprinting and tested on https://panopticlick.eff.org https://panopticlick.eff.org. A unique fingerprint was still present. Test it yourself.
- gruez 7y ago
  Right, that's why the setting is called resist fingerprinting. You still need to take other precautions like not full screening. A while ago I tested resistfingerprinting with a few machines and they all have the same fingerprint, so at least it's better than nothing. I tested with my browser and it was unique as well. It seems to be caused by high dpi monitor breaking the window size rounding logic. Retrying with high dpi disabled results in Within our dataset of several hundred thousand visitors tested in the past 45 days, only one in 5551.36 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours. Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 12.44 bits of identifying information. Maybe having resistfingerprinting is a fingerprinting datapoint itself?
- saxonww 7y ago
  Check and make sure it's the same fingerprint across multiple runs. I installed CanvasBlocker, and one of the things it does is fake results for a handful of API calls. So while Panopticlick reports a unique fingerprint each time, it looks (to me, based on their results) like a different browser each time. In particular, the two most specific categories they track are canvas and webgl hashes. Those are changing every time, which I believe makes them less useful as tracking information; the next-most-specific thing is a list of fonts, which is almost two orders of magnitude less specific.
- _emacsomancer_ 7y ago
  I don't fully understand panopticlick results. My machines always get uniquely identified by screen size (which I sort of understand, but find doubtful) and fonts installed. The latter I find very confusing since it often lists a set of garden variety Windows fonts, which I don't even have installed on my machine.
blacksmith_tb 7y ago
I still get failing marks in FF testing on panopticlick.eff.org with that set, though?
simion314 7y ago
As others said it is not as easy, you probably need a special browser profile that is very "extreme" with the privacy settings. I would suggest not over selling that Firefox setting.
- kube-system 7y ago
  That still won't work. Most people don't have 'extreme' privacy settings, so you'll again be unique. To resist fingerprinting, you want your setup to be as generic as possible. This is one reason why it's important that browser vendors need to tackle this issue by setting privacy focused defaults.

Amezarak 7y ago

With NoScript on Firefox, I have 8.7 (???) bits of identifying information according to Panopticlick. I did not enable the about:config setting a sibling poster mentioned. According to the site, I am passing adblocking and fingerprinting, but not invisible trackers or DNT. > Within our dataset of several hundred thousand visitors tested in the past 45 days, only one in 417.05 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours. > Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 8.7 bits of identifying information. So yeah, pretty much all web privacy is broken by Javascript.