3 ms·

the problem, for those tracking and using uniqueness tied to tech as a measure (as opposed to uniqueness tied to identity), is not that it is easy to change you

the problem, for those tracking and using uniqueness tied to tech as a measure (as opposed to uniqueness tied to identity), is not that it is easy to change you to be non-unique, it is that you will probably be a different "unique" user in a few days. If there is a lot of information that won't change that quickly it is questionable if that subset would be unique. Logically it seems to me that subset would not be unique because in tech the stuff that does not get changed gets widely distributed. on edit: here is a sample of three unique user profiles, I open up FF and I log in to Google. I have two unique users, FF, and Google. I then have to do something that needs Safari for some reason, so I open up Safari, and then for some reason I have to log into Google again on Safari. Now I have three unique user profiles: FF, Safari, and still Google. Browser fingerprinting is ok for tracking uniqueness in one way, but for building up a unique user profile it is pretty crap.

reactordev 1y ago
They will fuzz your uniqueness into a profile no matter how many times it changes. There’s enough there to identify you based on your fingerprint and behavior.
- bryanrasmussen 1y ago
  right, but it is most powerful if they can combine unique fingerprint with identity fingerprint via login over time, so as to build up a long term behavioral profile. Identity is not good enough because you will sometimes not be logged in, fingerprint via uniqueness may not be enough because your behavior may change in different environments.
  - reactordev 1y ago
    I assure you it’s enough even without a login
    - RHSman2 1y ago
      More please
    - hilbert42 1y ago
      One can be uniquely identified but the info gathered can be made pretty useless (at least for commercial purposes). The State spying on one is another matter altogether, one has to assume one is then petty transparent. For example, my default mode is no JS. If JS must be used then cache, cookies, history, etc. are erased by default (usually they are anyway). I use multiple machines and they have multiple browsers (there's five on this phone alone), and if I think it's important I'll change browsers between sessions for a given site—that also means an IP address change (router reboots, etc.). On Android, remove all Google apps, have no Google account, use a firewall and only allow apps from F-Droid to have internet access. Can't say I've clicked on an add in 20 years unless accidentally, and anyway I see them very rarely sans JS. If I do I never linger over them to give the impression I'm reading them. Browsers have block lists some very extensive (e.g. Privacy Browser), so do OSes' hosts files, location is off, etc. There's other stuff too but you get the gist. Why bother you ask. Before the internet I could look at adds in magazines, buy something without giving name, rank and serial number, and or my address, or phone number and so on and be pretty certain manufacturers and advertising agencies weren't tracking me. In short, I had some autonomy I could call my own. So why is it now a prerequisite to give all that personal stuff away just because I've joined the internet? That wasn't the plan when the internet was devised. I see what I do as basic self protection. A final point: what the internet desperately needs is a JavaScript engine that users can tailor to their individual needs. Randomize, machine details, cookie info, and so on. A well designed engine could feed copious junk info back to websites and spoof itself as a 'genuine' engine to the extent that websites wouldn't know what's genuine and what's not. Widespread use of such a JS engine could do considerable damage to these snooping bastards. The big question is why the hacking community hasn't yet come up with one.
    - bryanrasmussen 1y ago
      Obviously it would be statistically enough, but logically I find the assurance not convincing enough for all users and cases.

reactordev 1y ago

They will fuzz your uniqueness into a profile no matter how many times it changes. There’s enough there to identify you based on your fingerprint and behavior.

bryanrasmussen 1y ago
right, but it is most powerful if they can combine unique fingerprint with identity fingerprint via login over time, so as to build up a long term behavioral profile. Identity is not good enough because you will sometimes not be logged in, fingerprint via uniqueness may not be enough because your behavior may change in different environments.
- reactordev 1y ago
  I assure you it’s enough even without a login
  - RHSman2 1y ago
    More please
  - hilbert42 1y ago
    One can be uniquely identified but the info gathered can be made pretty useless (at least for commercial purposes). The State spying on one is another matter altogether, one has to assume one is then petty transparent. For example, my default mode is no JS. If JS must be used then cache, cookies, history, etc. are erased by default (usually they are anyway). I use multiple machines and they have multiple browsers (there's five on this phone alone), and if I think it's important I'll change browsers between sessions for a given site—that also means an IP address change (router reboots, etc.). On Android, remove all Google apps, have no Google account, use a firewall and only allow apps from F-Droid to have internet access. Can't say I've clicked on an add in 20 years unless accidentally, and anyway I see them very rarely sans JS. If I do I never linger over them to give the impression I'm reading them. Browsers have block lists some very extensive (e.g. Privacy Browser), so do OSes' hosts files, location is off, etc. There's other stuff too but you get the gist. Why bother you ask. Before the internet I could look at adds in magazines, buy something without giving name, rank and serial number, and or my address, or phone number and so on and be pretty certain manufacturers and advertising agencies weren't tracking me. In short, I had some autonomy I could call my own. So why is it now a prerequisite to give all that personal stuff away just because I've joined the internet? That wasn't the plan when the internet was devised. I see what I do as basic self protection. A final point: what the internet desperately needs is a JavaScript engine that users can tailor to their individual needs. Randomize, machine details, cookie info, and so on. A well designed engine could feed copious junk info back to websites and spoof itself as a 'genuine' engine to the extent that websites wouldn't know what's genuine and what's not. Widespread use of such a JS engine could do considerable damage to these snooping bastards. The big question is why the hacking community hasn't yet come up with one.
  - bryanrasmussen 1y ago
    Obviously it would be statistically enough, but logically I find the assurance not convincing enough for all users and cases.