Just to clarify, this is not a new finding, but an explainer of a study from 2016. Note that this fingerprinting technique exploits differences in the behavior

Just to clarify, this is not a new finding, but an explainer of a study from 2016. Note that this fingerprinting technique exploits differences in the behavior of the AudioContext API, but does not (and cannot) actually record audio. Paper: https://webtransparency.cs.princeton.edu/webcensus/index.html https://webtransparency.cs.princeton.edu/webcensus/index.htm... Demonstration (test your own audio fingerprint): https://audiofingerprint.openwpm.com https://audiofingerprint.openwpm.com Discussion from 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11729438 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11729438 Full list of websites where audio fingerprinting scripts were found (in March 2016): https://webtransparency.cs.princeton.edu/webcensus/audio_fp_scripts.html https://webtransparency.cs.princeton.edu/webcensus/audio_fp_... Source: I'm an author of the research in question (but unaffiliated with this blog). Note to mods: article title is "Audio Fingerprinting using the AudioContext API". Submitter title is "Sites are using audio (no permissions needed) to track users", which may violate the site guidelines.