3 ms·
The missing piece is that no fingerprint is involved. They don't have a way of identifying that user, but they are still able to count the number of times that
by bonestamp2 4y ago
The missing piece is that no fingerprint is involved. They don't have a way of identifying that user, but they are still able to count the number of times that visitor loads the page. So, it's not a tracker, it's a counter. It's like a loyalty punch card at your local sandwich shop -- they can track how many times you've been there by counting the hole punches, but they don't have a unique identifier, so they can't track details about those visits.
On the other hand, a cookie or a browser fingerprint contains info that can uniquely identify that user so it can be used for tracking.
- legitster 4y agoA cookie doesn't have to contain a fingerprint though. In the same way, nothing in their current method necessarily says they couldn't find a way to insert a fingerprint here.
- bonestamp2 4y agoFair enough. At least they've told us how it works, so if the data no longer matches that methodology in the future then we can speculate that they've implanted a UID, unless they tell us how it works again and the data is consistent with the new methodology.