2 ms·

RIP JShelter

• vntok 3y ago
  This is a good thing. Generally, you shouldn't block fingerprinting from inside the browser, it is only a fool's errand that provides a false sense of security while being open to exploits, new techniques, bypasses and broken sites. If you want to be safe from tracking, run your browser sessions in separate ephemeral containers or even VMs and trash them regularly for example. Qubes OS is at one of the extreme ends of this, but Chrome profiles are sufficient for the vast majority of use cases.
  • monista 3y ago
    Can you please elaborate, how exactly running from fresh container would stop tracking? As I see it, once you get fingerprinted, running from the same environment keeps your fingerprint (excluding (super)cookies, which you could clear inside your browser as well), thus not preventing tracking.
  • out-of-ideas 3y ago
    it's only a good thing as it will be maybe one less plugin to deal with but i'd argue its a bad thing overall; if we cannot use curl/lynx/ect to hit a website to view somebody's squabbling on their blog, to not see the url to an image/video without loading it when you want to, something is amiss. IMO, JS and other newer components are trying to make a general purpose OS out of the browser, and its a bit too much; which yes leads to needing to handle fingerprinting outside the browser; but really all this to stop the adtech from tracking our asses? I do totally agree to regularly trashing of profiles; though the accessibility for more folks needs to be there, IE: the local-system automation of retaining plugin block profiles and a few others. just takes time and energy - but in an era where we uselessly burn energy and call it a currency and folks cling to it, well, it's just another wave to drown in