4 ms·
tracking != advertising
by tritium 11y ago
tracking != advertising
- devsquid 11y agoClearly, but the Blog post is also about ads.
- the8472 11y agoadvertising hosted on the same domain as the website might not track you beyond the domain itself. But since most websites share common ad networks those ad networks can effectively track you while showing their ads.
- gpvos 11y agoHow would they do that without the ability to use the same cookie? The only way I can think of is to track you by ip address.
- jdbernard 11y agoWell, for one, they could fingerprint your browser: https://panopticlick.eff.org/ https://panopticlick.eff.org/
- gpvos 11y agoIs that really done to any real extent? The majority of users will have a standard configuration anyway.
- mQu 11y agoYes and no. In my tests with live traffic (fingerprint,ip) tuple was as good as standard tracking cookie. Sometimes even better because I could match "incognito" modes as well. This was however only for desktop browsers. Mobile has much higher conformity and yielded mostly false positives. YMMV of course but for my purposes it was not worth it.
- poooogles 11y agoUsed to work in paywalls (think New Yorker), we used both Supercookies and Fingerprinting. Most good paywalls that support metering will now use some kind of fingerprinting at a minimum.
- jdbernard 11y agoFollow the link if you haven't already. You'd be surprised how unique the "standard configuration" is. For example, my desktop PC with a fresh install of Firefox is unique among the data that site has collected.
- the8472 11y agoby IP address may be good enough per session and each session could be tied to per more persistent IDs in cooperation with the sites embedding the ads, e.g. via the javascript loading some parts of the ads. So even if you block cookies to the ad network's domain they could still store cookies on any site that embeds their JS directly.