4 ms·
While I agree that browser vendors could potentially have handled this better, I am more incline to view this as a regulation failure - that fingerprinting is p
by Klaster_1 2y ago
While I agree that browser vendors could potentially have handled this better, I am more incline to view this as a regulation failure - that fingerprinting is permitted in the first place. By acting in this manner, ad companies offload the cost of to browser vendors, general public and reduce overall societal trust. This is especially concerning when Google exploits its positions as an ad company and browser vendor, see the Menifest V3 situation for an example.
- Tade0 2y ago> I am more incline to view this as a regulation failure - that fingerprinting is permitted in the first place. In the EU it's not without explicit consent outside of a few, clearly defined cases. Of course compliance is not 100%.
- dale_glass 2y agoRegulation isn't universal, so it won't fix the issue. A company wanting to work around that can just contract with another running out of a country without such regulations. Browsers should do their best to make fingerprinting a non-viable approach.
- StilesCrisis 2y agoI don't think fingerprinting can be stopped as long as JavaScript exists. There will always be some minor difference you can exploit or some cache you can misuse.
- didntcheck 2y agoThere is also the fact that there can be legitimate uses for APIs which expose information by design One of the few good ideas Google proposed is Privacy Budget [1], which now appears to be abandoned. In short the browser estimates how much information each risky API call discloses, and blocks further calls if the sum exceeds some threshold [1] https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/protections/privacy-budget# https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/protections/pr...