4 ms·

Probably true, however, is it feasible for anti-fingerprinting technology to be sufficiently standardized that website authors can tell "oh, they're using anti-

Probably true, however, is it feasible for anti-fingerprinting technology to be sufficiently standardized that website authors can tell "oh, they're using anti-fingerprinting", but not derive more details? If a piece of anti-fingerprinting software hides more information than it reveals, it's a net positive. If it does the opposite, it's actively harmful. There's probably a nice formulation of this in terms of entropy, but I can't quite state it, so hopefully this makes sense.

iguy 6y ago
My guess is that "sufficiently standardized" has to come from browser-makers. If what my browser reveals (at the default settings) is that I'm using Safari 13, and little more, then it could actually be low-information.
- numpad0 6y ago
  aaand Google develops Chrome, Mozilla is 90+% funded by Google, and Edge is a fork of Chrome. On mobile? You’ve either got an Android phone, or iOS device, either way they ping Gmail and whatnot so Google knows your IP to correlate with.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
GoblinSlayer 6y ago
Turn off javascript, that's your gold standard anti-fingerprinting.
- thotsBgone 6y ago
  No
- kube-system 6y ago
  Two problems with that: 1. Everybody uses js. If you have it turned off, you are in a very tiny group, and now you’re easier to track. Remember that js is not the only mechanism to fingerprint a user. 2. Much of the web does not work with js turned off.
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    Much of the web you visit logged in anyway, like facebook.
  - nalekberov 6y ago
    There is no better way against fingerprinting than disabling js, you might be in a very tiny group, but tons of tracking scripts will fail to work, which means you will traceable by less parties. If a website forces me to use js in order to use it, I will question it, 98% of them is not worth it in my case. Remember js was invented to add websites dynamism, not to serve for surveillance capitalism. (Okay, Big corporations was involved in creation of js, but that does not constitute every action they take)

iguy 6y ago

My guess is that "sufficiently standardized" has to come from browser-makers. If what my browser reveals (at the default settings) is that I'm using Safari 13, and little more, then it could actually be low-information.

numpad0 6y ago
aaand Google develops Chrome, Mozilla is 90+% funded by Google, and Edge is a fork of Chrome. On mobile? You’ve either got an Android phone, or iOS device, either way they ping Gmail and whatnot so Google knows your IP to correlate with.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

GoblinSlayer 6y ago

Turn off javascript, that's your gold standard anti-fingerprinting.

thotsBgone 6y ago
No
kube-system 6y ago
Two problems with that: 1. Everybody uses js. If you have it turned off, you are in a very tiny group, and now you’re easier to track. Remember that js is not the only mechanism to fingerprint a user. 2. Much of the web does not work with js turned off.
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  Much of the web you visit logged in anyway, like facebook.
- nalekberov 6y ago
  There is no better way against fingerprinting than disabling js, you might be in a very tiny group, but tons of tracking scripts will fail to work, which means you will traceable by less parties. If a website forces me to use js in order to use it, I will question it, 98% of them is not worth it in my case. Remember js was invented to add websites dynamism, not to serve for surveillance capitalism. (Okay, Big corporations was involved in creation of js, but that does not constitute every action they take)