5 ms·
I think you miss some key issues here: (a) Browser fingerprinting can be very robust if you select your data points correctly. E.g. installed plugins, content
by m000 1y ago
I think you miss some key issues here:
(a) Browser fingerprinting can be very robust if you select your data points correctly. E.g. installed plugins, content language, fonts. The used data points can be dynamically fine-tuned in retrospect and be different for each identified agent.
(b) In the grand scheme of things, the browser fingerprint is only one data point. If you combine it with other data points (e.g. the geo-data you mentioned) you can overcome some of its limitations as well as intentional evasion attempts. E.g. a new fingerprint appears at my workplace IP that has 80% similarity with my old fingerprint. At the same time my old fingerprint goes dark.
(c) The ad companies take the shotgun approach because it works for them: it is cost-effective and can be defended as a legit method. Entities that are interested in surveilance for purposes other than selling ads and already collect a trove of other data can do a lot better than ad companies.
- 400thecat 1y ago> Browser fingerprinting can be very robust if you select your data points correctly. E.g. installed plugins can websites really see installed plugins?
- peetistaken 1y agoNot really. They can‘t see a list, as navigator.plugins is dummy data in every major browser, but they might able to detect eg. Adblockers by other means
- dubcanada 1y agoAdblocking is not rocket science, you block the DNS of the ads. Some also use JS to mess or remove ads. All of this is easily detected, can I ping X, can I see DOM Y, etc.
- coldtea 1y ago>E.g. installed plugins, content language, fonts. Nobody installs plugins in 2025. Content language is basically like the geo-data the parent said, but coarser. And billions of people just have the same (default OS) fonts - plus iirc, there are broswer mitigations against font enumeration for fingerprinting.