It 'solves' the problem in the theoretical sense, but in a practical sense websites may still require information from the browser for actual justified purposes

It 'solves' the problem in the theoretical sense, but in a practical sense websites may still require information from the browser for actual justified purposes. Think identifying the browser, OS, resolution and window size (non-exhaustive list and I'm a data-linking person but not a web person, so I'm just making them up). Indeed as long as browsers need to send actual information for successful implementation of whatever it is the website is doing, the potential for fingerprinting still exists. And as long as there are sufficiently non-random properties of the computer for the theoretical attacker to poll (via whatever mechanism they can), then fingerprinting will be a viable mechanism. Although as EFF points out, if MOST of the identifier obtainers require Javascript or connections to certain URLs to work, it might be that blocking javascript and URL blockers might be sufficient to stop most of them in practice? Edit: of course, every time I say theory and practice here we run into problems of how much people are willing to do or put up with in practice...