4 ms·

My favorite thing from that uniqueness website is that it shows cookies enabled as more common and thus more anonymizing. Not that they wouldn't just fingerprin

My favorite thing from that uniqueness website is that it shows cookies enabled as more common and thus more anonymizing. Not that they wouldn't just fingerprint you using those cookies if it was enabled. The other interesting thing is that it lists my plugins and "do not track" settings. They are both fairly unique. So, someone who attempts to anonimize themselves using plugins or browser features are just highlighting themselves. I wonder how unique `wget` would be.

digging 3y ago
Yes, I reduced my plugins count in firefox to slightly decrease my uniqueness. piling on additional tracking prevention addons means getting tracked more.
- 2ICofafireteam 3y ago
  The absence of things can be as profound as their presence.
- code_duck 3y ago
  Simply using Firefox is a problem in that regard. I think most recent number I saw for Firefox usage was 1%.
  - digging 3y ago
    Yes, that's true. I think Firefox now tries to hide itself by sending a false user agent? Everything is a trade-off though... using a version of firefox that's closer to stock is probably helping a tiny bit. Or maybe it's not, since Firefox wants people to use plugins (and for some reason, doesn't warn of the dingerprinting danger).
    - code_duck 3y ago
      Mine currently says Firefox in it. You can override it without a plugin in the about:config setting general.useragent.override. I would expect that any reasonably sophisticated fingerprinting system would not rely primarily on the useragent, and agree that anything that isn't stock only serves to distinguish you further.
adrian_b 3y ago
I have also looked there and what makes me unique is that nobody else has the same list of installed fonts, which is not a surprise for me, because I have bought several commercial high-quality typefaces, while most people have only the fonts installed by the operating system and by popular office suites. Besides the fonts, only 3% of the people recorded in their database have their monitors configured for 30-bit color. Therefore it appears that taking good care of my eyes makes me easily identifiable, but there is no workaround for this, except for running the browser in a VM, where the characteristics of the hardware and whatever else is installed could be well hidden.
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  Have you tried Firefox's resistFingerprinting abou:config flag? I don't know if they've implemented those but technically speaking I don't think a vm is necessary.
  - adrian_b 3y ago
    I have tried that right now, in Firefox 102.12. It hides the fact that I have a 30-bit monitor by pretending that it is a 24-bit monitor, but the list of available fonts remains visible, so I can still be uniquely identified.
    - iudqnolq 3y ago
      Looks like there's a separate pref for fonts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31544902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31544902
- jspiral 3y ago
  or starting a campaign to convince others to adopt your ways!
gorbachev 3y ago
My most unique settings were: list of fonts, list of plugins, media devices (the combo of webcams and microphones my work computer uses) Great site for understanding what your browser tells about who you are.

digging 3y ago

Yes, I reduced my plugins count in firefox to slightly decrease my uniqueness. piling on additional tracking prevention addons means getting tracked more.

2ICofafireteam 3y ago
The absence of things can be as profound as their presence.
code_duck 3y ago
Simply using Firefox is a problem in that regard. I think most recent number I saw for Firefox usage was 1%.
- digging 3y ago
  Yes, that's true. I think Firefox now tries to hide itself by sending a false user agent? Everything is a trade-off though... using a version of firefox that's closer to stock is probably helping a tiny bit. Or maybe it's not, since Firefox wants people to use plugins (and for some reason, doesn't warn of the dingerprinting danger).
  - code_duck 3y ago
    Mine currently says Firefox in it. You can override it without a plugin in the about:config setting general.useragent.override. I would expect that any reasonably sophisticated fingerprinting system would not rely primarily on the useragent, and agree that anything that isn't stock only serves to distinguish you further.

adrian_b 3y ago

I have also looked there and what makes me unique is that nobody else has the same list of installed fonts, which is not a surprise for me, because I have bought several commercial high-quality typefaces, while most people have only the fonts installed by the operating system and by popular office suites. Besides the fonts, only 3% of the people recorded in their database have their monitors configured for 30-bit color. Therefore it appears that taking good care of my eyes makes me easily identifiable, but there is no workaround for this, except for running the browser in a VM, where the characteristics of the hardware and whatever else is installed could be well hidden.

iudqnolq 3y ago
Have you tried Firefox's resistFingerprinting abou:config flag? I don't know if they've implemented those but technically speaking I don't think a vm is necessary.
- adrian_b 3y ago
  I have tried that right now, in Firefox 102.12. It hides the fact that I have a 30-bit monitor by pretending that it is a 24-bit monitor, but the list of available fonts remains visible, so I can still be uniquely identified.
  - iudqnolq 3y ago
    Looks like there's a separate pref for fonts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31544902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31544902
jspiral 3y ago
or starting a campaign to convince others to adopt your ways!

gorbachev 3y ago

My most unique settings were: list of fonts, list of plugins, media devices (the combo of webcams and microphones my work computer uses) Great site for understanding what your browser tells about who you are.