4 ms·

I'd suspected that having JS completely disabled would make my fingerprint more distinct, since presumably few people have it disabled. However, on visiting the

I'd suspected that having JS completely disabled would make my fingerprint more distinct, since presumably few people have it disabled. However, on visiting the page with JS enabled I received a 100% unique fingerprint. Any one of the following identifies me uniquely: WebGL Renderer, List of fonts (JS), Media devices. Then there is a long list of properties which can be sniffed with JavaScript that identify me with >99.9% accuracy. When I disable JS, there are 108 browsers with the exact same fingerprint as mine. That prompts me to reconsider my policy of blocking JS. Until now, I've been blocking only third-party JS. Now I am considering blocking all JS by default.

tln 7y ago
The most identifiable data points for me are from JS, except User agent.
- neltnerb 7y ago
  Same, I was one of 83 with javascript disabled, when I turned it on the information gained was way more than the information gained by knowing I have it off.
  - divbzero 7y ago
    Ditto with my browser: unique with JavaScript, but a few dozen identical browsers with JavaScript disabled. Keeping JavaScript off for now as an experiment, see how many graceful websites are still out there…
dmje 7y ago
Um..how’s your web browsing experience with no JS...?
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  Fast?
  - neuronic 7y ago
    Of course it's fast if you remove any sort of functionality from the net.
    - account42 7y ago
      Mostly unwanted functionality.
- Jamwinner 7y ago
  Pretty decent. I enable for one of 10 i'd say, and leave a whole lot more sites that require it needlessly without shedding any tears.
jefftk 7y ago
Note that some of these (ex: fonts) can be detected without JS, it just likely wasn't worth it for this site to code them that way.