2 ms·

I'd like to have this capability but not if it makes typical web browsing annoying with too many alerts. I'd prefer to have the feature work by default with a b

I'd like to have this capability but not if it makes typical web browsing annoying with too many alerts. I'd prefer to have the feature work by default with a blacklist of sites known or likely to do fingerprinting (ie larger social and media sites). Of course it can also have an optional strict mode for those who want a higher degree of anonymity in exchange for more disruption of their browsing. My personal concern with fingerprinting isn't so much any individual low-traffic site recognizing my browser. It's the higher-traffic sites working together to aggregate profiles. I don't need "zero tolerance" anti-fingerprinting. I just want to make it harder for big data aggregators to compile highly accurate, large population databases. Hopefully, a sweet spot can be found in testing which is minimally disruptive for typical users but frustrates data aggregator's ability to compile highly-lucrative data products across sites. I'd imagine just applying anti-fingerprinting to the 1,000 highest traffic websites might be enough to cut the profitability of cross-site aggregation significantly.

gruez 4y ago
>I'd like to have this capability but not if it makes typical web browsing annoying with too many alerts. I'd prefer to have the feature work by default with a blacklist of sites known or likely to do fingerprinting (ie larger social and media sites). Of course it can also have an optional strict mode for those who want a higher degree of anonymity in exchange for more disruption of their browsing. That sounds like brave/firefox's "tracking protection", which blacklists well-known fingerprinting scripts >My personal concern with fingerprinting isn't so much any individual low-traffic site recognizing my browser. It's the higher-traffic sites working together to aggregate profiles. I don't need "zero tolerance" anti-fingerprinting. I just want to make it harder for big data aggregators to compile highly accurate, large population databases. Hopefully, a sweet spot can be found in testing which is minimally disruptive for typical users but frustrates data aggregator's ability to compile highly-lucrative data products across sites. I'd imagine just applying anti-fingerprinting to the 1,000 highest traffic websites might be enough to cut the profitability of cross-site aggregation significantly. What counts as a "low-traffic site"? how would this work with tricks like CNAME cloaking?

gruez 4y ago

>I'd like to have this capability but not if it makes typical web browsing annoying with too many alerts. I'd prefer to have the feature work by default with a blacklist of sites known or likely to do fingerprinting (ie larger social and media sites). Of course it can also have an optional strict mode for those who want a higher degree of anonymity in exchange for more disruption of their browsing. That sounds like brave/firefox's "tracking protection", which blacklists well-known fingerprinting scripts >My personal concern with fingerprinting isn't so much any individual low-traffic site recognizing my browser. It's the higher-traffic sites working together to aggregate profiles. I don't need "zero tolerance" anti-fingerprinting. I just want to make it harder for big data aggregators to compile highly accurate, large population databases. Hopefully, a sweet spot can be found in testing which is minimally disruptive for typical users but frustrates data aggregator's ability to compile highly-lucrative data products across sites. I'd imagine just applying anti-fingerprinting to the 1,000 highest traffic websites might be enough to cut the profitability of cross-site aggregation significantly. What counts as a "low-traffic site"? how would this work with tricks like CNAME cloaking?