121–130 of 411 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also reduces incentives to actually make moves that benefit privacy. Because if the people who say they care about privacy aren't going to support you, why bother?
Nah, the people who care are happy. The problem is the guys who like to talk. It's the same with security. There's like an army of people who've learned about it from internet commentary exclusively and they bluster a lot as a substitute for competence.
I find it really interesting that when a company is making moves in a direction that benefits privacy of consumers, everyone takes the opportunity to shit on them for past mistakes or how it isn't good enough or why isn't it on by default or any other thing they can find to shit on. Yes, every single company has made mistakes. FireFox is no exception. Some of them were pretty egregious. Mistakes are - hopefully - an…
Pretty sure you would never say the same thing about Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox has ~250M users as of about 9 months ago and $562M revenue for 2017. I'd honestly pay $2 per month (12 times "my share") for a Firefox that completely disavows the ad model and produces a truly user-centric experience sans ads, fingerprinting, etc. However, given that over 95% of their revenue comes from Royalties, I don't see that turning around any time soon.
I would too, but clearly most people wouldn't, otherwise advertisement wouldn't be such a popular way to monetize apps and websites (and Google wouldn't be the behemoth that it is today). Actually I would also gladly pay for a decent search engine but even DuckDuckGo decided to monetize using ads, which IMO means that sooner or later if they're successful enough they'll become just as bad as the rest. Besides paying…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CanvasBlocker actually increases your track-ability because the consistent factor is now that you have a changing canvas fingerprint (which almost no one does). This is why Safari tries to give a universal canvas fingerprint so you can "blend in" with other users.
I agree that a universal canvas fingerprint is better in principle, but practically who is going to write a script to search for all visitors who only differ by their canvas fingerprint and then identify them as one browser because the fingerprints are non-standard?
Anyone who wants to sell ads to the technically-inclined and privacy-conscious? In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if a simple ML picked up on this pattern.
This represents the sad state of Internet we are all living through. I have noticed that when I turn on privacy settings on Firefox, some major websites are broken and rendered unusable. It seems that the Internet is rampant with tracking and privacy violation, and we consumers are passively accepting it, by and large.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CanvasBlocker actually increases your track-ability because the consistent factor is now that you have a changing canvas fingerprint (which almost no one does). This is why Safari tries to give a universal canvas fingerprint so you can "blend in" with other users.
I agree that a universal canvas fingerprint is better in principle, but practically who is going to write a script to search for all visitors who only differ by their canvas fingerprint and then identify them as one browser because the fingerprints are non-standard?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox deploys two different forms of fingerprint protection: 1) blocking known fingerprinting scripts. 2) blocking underlying techniques. The second is the one people here are talking about, and it can be enabled by going to your settings and turning on resistFingerprinting. Keep in mind it will do things like normalize your time zone and decrease timer precision.
Nope. The linked mozilla blog post clearly talks about the fingerprinting settings, and the comment I replied to did not specify anything related to "blocking underlying techniques".
I understand what the original posted link is talking about, but the specific thread you're currently on is very clearly talking about more than whether or not Panoptoclick's tracking script is blocked. They're talking about how well different browsers can resist the techniques it uses[0]. Why else would anyone be comparing their results to Tor?
Can someone paste their results (or at least bits of fingerprinting entropy) from https://panopticlick.eff.org with the latest Firefox? With the fancy new anti-fingerprinting Safari on macOS Mojave I get just over 14.5 bits of entropy with the most entropic source being my canvas fingerprint (1 in 600). With Safari on iOS I get 11.71 bits of entropy, with the most entropic value being my screen size and color depth.
> 9.93 bits of identifying information. with this new setting turned on + uBlock Origin + NoScript
Serious question. Suppose we have this. I suppose my expectation is that instead of seeing the same ad over and over again, now I'm seeing effectively a random one. Why is this necessarily better? I guess personally, I've always thought that regulating the content of the ads, rather than the usage of sufficiently anonymized data for ad targeting.
Getting a targeted advertising that is likely relevant to you is probably one of the few positives of tracking. The issue people have with tracking is not 'what ad am I getting on a given website'. To get a targeted ad they need to maintain a database of privacy infringing information. 3rd parties having this data, and what they might do it with it (or who they might lose the data to) is what many people have an issu…