- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
You must log in or register to comment.
Fingerprints have been ‘the new cookies’ for like 20 years, so I think it’s starting to stretch the definition of ‘new’.
I get a new name on each reload, because I use an addon that prevents exactly that.
But note this paragraph in the article:
The ironic truth is, privacy extensions make you more unique, since fewer people have them. So a smart tracker could detect that, ignore the signals disrupted by the extension and focus on the ones that are not.
The tracking mechanisms that this article uses are not the only ones available to actual bad actors.
I’m aware, should still be less unique than a fingerprint. Although there are much more invasive techniques, question is if developers actually use those, instead of going the easy route and detect most users anyway.
What do you use for mobile?
Probably the same thing. Firefox for mobile supports extensions
I’m using iron fox, it won’t load that extension
Isn’t ironfox anti fingerprint already? At least librewolf recommends ironfox on mobile and canvasblock when you turn off the librewolf resist fingerprint options
it turns out that I’m stupid and I forget to re-enable installation of add-ons.
been on uMatrix to default block all scripts, XHR and iframes for years but this would be a nice addition on top for the sites i actually need to enable it on. I mostly block all kinds of tracking but fingerprinting is always annoying
Finger prints are extremely invasive. They like a 100 percent identification of about any user.
