4 ms·

On many websites, you will literally be the only person doing that. This is a unique fingerprint. This might not matter to you, since it sounds like privacy is

On many websites, you will literally be the only person doing that. This is a unique fingerprint. This might not matter to you, since it sounds like privacy isn’t your primary motivation here, but it is worth pointing out that custom patched browsers are going to be more fingerprinted, not less.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
Yes, I understand some HN readers have this thought. I have gotten similar replies before. However, consider that I only send two to three headers: Host, Connection and (optionally) Cookie. There is nothing unique about the text-only browser by virtue of the patches. The TCP connetion and TLS is handled by a proxy. Sometimes I send the TCP requests with netcat, tcpclient, socat, etc. Then I open the HTML file with the browser. Perhaps the proxy has a fingerprint, but it is a very popular proxy in widespread use. Maybe the OS, e.g., the networking stack, has a fingerprint. Maybe the TCP clients have fingeprints. But seriously, what is the point of thinking about these things. Who is going to go to such lengths to try to "identify" me. What is their purpose. Am I a spy trying to hide from computer forensics nerds. No. Am I trying to "blend in". No. I am trying to improve the web experience. That involves 1. sending the minimum data (avoid feeding the online advertising juggernaut) and 2. reducing advertising, ideally to zero. I have done a good job of both 1 and 2. Who is going to try to advertise to a user who is using a text-only browser. Also, assuming hypothetically, for argument's sake, we tried to get every user to "blend in" by using the exact same browser with the exact same settings on the exact same computer. Which would be easier: (a) users have to copy all the settings and idiosyncracies of a "modern" graphical browser including numerous HTTP headers or (b) users have to refrain from running CSS or Javascript and limit to sending only two to three headers (Host, Connection and, optionally, Cookie) and only send one request at a time. The more points of differentiation one has to worry about, the greater the chance one will overlook something. Needless to say, the "modern" browser presents a greater number of points of differentiation than the text-only browser. The goal for me is to improve the web experience, including minimising (a) how much data I voluntarily share and (b) advertising. I have succeeded. The use of a text-only browser in lieu of a graphical one for recreational web use is part of the solution. I also benefit from other strategies that help with (b). Attempts to advertise to me online are few and far between. It is a fruitless endeavour. It is not a goal of mine to try to "blend in" with other web users. It appears this is a goal of some HN commenters. Alas, other web users share heaps of data voluntarily and subject themselves to large amount of advertising. There is arguably a price to pay for trying to appear "same".
- checkyoursudo 5y ago
  Thanks for this comment. This is basically my position. While I prefer that sites would respect "do not track", ultimately I just don't want to see all the shitty ads. I don't really care if you're trying super hard to track me, though I think you're a fool if you do based on what I do online (read HN, wikipedia; download academic papers, mostly?). I sympathize with the people who are going for pure anonymity. If I could be anonymous and still have a usable web, then I would do that. If you really think you'll learn something about me by tracking me, then whatever. I have still never been served a relevant ad in my life, so, uh, great job there. But in the end I just don't want to see all the shitty ads. I would be interested to know what these people think they know about me. Based on my experience as a cognitive scientist, I suspect they know an awful lot less than they think they know ... or at least claim in their sales pitches to advertisers.
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
    "Thanks for this comment." Likewise. What these replies about "uniqueness" seem to ignore is that the majority of traffic on the internet is so-called "bots". In other words, it is traffic from clients that are not Chrome, Safari, etc. It is ridicuously easy to be mistaken for a "bot" when submitting requests manually, if one does not know what they are doing. For example, editing a single HTTP header is often enough. "Bot detection" is more often than not based on laughably crude heuristics. What happens if the user makes a single request manually and that header is missing. There is nothing to check. In almost all cases, nothing happens. There is no penalty for reducing the amount of information sent. In any event, it is rather easy to unintentionally "blend in" with the majority of internet traffic, which comes from "bots". Those professing to have superior knowledge about user behaviour, including Big Tech, still cannot tell if someone is submitting requests manually or not.^1 (Absent keylogging on the users computer.) Their superior knowledge of user behaviour only applies to users who use "modern" browsers that place high emphasis on graphics. Chrome, Safari, etc. No one is going to try to advertise to a "bot", i.e., a non-graphical client. It would be ineffective. The online advertisig industry relies on graphical web browsers like Chrome and Safari. Using a common browser with the default settings to try to "remain" anonymous comes at a cost. Default settings do not include installation of extensions, e.g., ad blockers. 1. Contrast this with the different question of determining whether or not a user is using a certain client, e.g., Chrome, Safari, etc. That is an easier question to answer. However detection of other clients is not done. I am never notified whether or not I am using, e.g., tcpclient, original netcat, socat, openssl, etc. How does one detect the difference. And assuming they could tell, then what. How will ads be served. The HN commenters replying about "uniqueness" fail to consider why there is so much effort to "fingerprint". It is driven by advertising which puts a monetary value on gathering user data. Using a modern browser, sending more data voluntarily to "belnd in", feeds the online advertising industry and ensures such surveillance efforts will only increase. As checkyoursudo suggests, the data collectors will "claim in their sales pitches to advertisers" that they know a great deal about users, regardless of whether the data they have collected is truly accurate or usefully informative. Feeding the data collectors "fake" or "non-unique" data is one idea, but another idea is not sending the data at all. For HTTP requests, the later works for me.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago

Yes, I understand some HN readers have this thought. I have gotten similar replies before. However, consider that I only send two to three headers: Host, Connection and (optionally) Cookie. There is nothing unique about the text-only browser by virtue of the patches. The TCP connetion and TLS is handled by a proxy. Sometimes I send the TCP requests with netcat, tcpclient, socat, etc. Then I open the HTML file with the browser. Perhaps the proxy has a fingerprint, but it is a very popular proxy in widespread use. Maybe the OS, e.g., the networking stack, has a fingerprint. Maybe the TCP clients have fingeprints. But seriously, what is the point of thinking about these things. Who is going to go to such lengths to try to "identify" me. What is their purpose. Am I a spy trying to hide from computer forensics nerds. No. Am I trying to "blend in". No. I am trying to improve the web experience. That involves 1. sending the minimum data (avoid feeding the online advertising juggernaut) and 2. reducing advertising, ideally to zero. I have done a good job of both 1 and 2. Who is going to try to advertise to a user who is using a text-only browser. Also, assuming hypothetically, for argument's sake, we tried to get every user to "blend in" by using the exact same browser with the exact same settings on the exact same computer. Which would be easier: (a) users have to copy all the settings and idiosyncracies of a "modern" graphical browser including numerous HTTP headers or (b) users have to refrain from running CSS or Javascript and limit to sending only two to three headers (Host, Connection and, optionally, Cookie) and only send one request at a time. The more points of differentiation one has to worry about, the greater the chance one will overlook something. Needless to say, the "modern" browser presents a greater number of points of differentiation than the text-only browser. The goal for me is to improve the web experience, including minimising (a) how much data I voluntarily share and (b) advertising. I have succeeded. The use of a text-only browser in lieu of a graphical one for recreational web use is part of the solution. I also benefit from other strategies that help with (b). Attempts to advertise to me online are few and far between. It is a fruitless endeavour. It is not a goal of mine to try to "blend in" with other web users. It appears this is a goal of some HN commenters. Alas, other web users share heaps of data voluntarily and subject themselves to large amount of advertising. There is arguably a price to pay for trying to appear "same".

checkyoursudo 5y ago
Thanks for this comment. This is basically my position. While I prefer that sites would respect "do not track", ultimately I just don't want to see all the shitty ads. I don't really care if you're trying super hard to track me, though I think you're a fool if you do based on what I do online (read HN, wikipedia; download academic papers, mostly?). I sympathize with the people who are going for pure anonymity. If I could be anonymous and still have a usable web, then I would do that. If you really think you'll learn something about me by tracking me, then whatever. I have still never been served a relevant ad in my life, so, uh, great job there. But in the end I just don't want to see all the shitty ads. I would be interested to know what these people think they know about me. Based on my experience as a cognitive scientist, I suspect they know an awful lot less than they think they know ... or at least claim in their sales pitches to advertisers.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
  "Thanks for this comment." Likewise. What these replies about "uniqueness" seem to ignore is that the majority of traffic on the internet is so-called "bots". In other words, it is traffic from clients that are not Chrome, Safari, etc. It is ridicuously easy to be mistaken for a "bot" when submitting requests manually, if one does not know what they are doing. For example, editing a single HTTP header is often enough. "Bot detection" is more often than not based on laughably crude heuristics. What happens if the user makes a single request manually and that header is missing. There is nothing to check. In almost all cases, nothing happens. There is no penalty for reducing the amount of information sent. In any event, it is rather easy to unintentionally "blend in" with the majority of internet traffic, which comes from "bots". Those professing to have superior knowledge about user behaviour, including Big Tech, still cannot tell if someone is submitting requests manually or not.^1 (Absent keylogging on the users computer.) Their superior knowledge of user behaviour only applies to users who use "modern" browsers that place high emphasis on graphics. Chrome, Safari, etc. No one is going to try to advertise to a "bot", i.e., a non-graphical client. It would be ineffective. The online advertisig industry relies on graphical web browsers like Chrome and Safari. Using a common browser with the default settings to try to "remain" anonymous comes at a cost. Default settings do not include installation of extensions, e.g., ad blockers. 1. Contrast this with the different question of determining whether or not a user is using a certain client, e.g., Chrome, Safari, etc. That is an easier question to answer. However detection of other clients is not done. I am never notified whether or not I am using, e.g., tcpclient, original netcat, socat, openssl, etc. How does one detect the difference. And assuming they could tell, then what. How will ads be served. The HN commenters replying about "uniqueness" fail to consider why there is so much effort to "fingerprint". It is driven by advertising which puts a monetary value on gathering user data. Using a modern browser, sending more data voluntarily to "belnd in", feeds the online advertising industry and ensures such surveillance efforts will only increase. As checkyoursudo suggests, the data collectors will "claim in their sales pitches to advertisers" that they know a great deal about users, regardless of whether the data they have collected is truly accurate or usefully informative. Feeding the data collectors "fake" or "non-unique" data is one idea, but another idea is not sending the data at all. For HTTP requests, the later works for me.