Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Block Fingerprinting with Firefox

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 411 posts

Re: Block Fingerprinting with Firefox

#181

Post by qiqitori »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #95
messe wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you haven't already, change your user agent to get it down further.

You have to stick with known popular user agents. To mitigate tracking by UA you need a randomized user agent that changes periodically. Panopticlick won't be able to account for that in its stats. It's not a good idea to switch UA on every request since it will be hard to diagnose breakage caused by a site that rejects particular UAs.

I dunno...

"Periodically changing user agent" sounds pretty unique if you ask me. Especially if the extension isn't super-clever and changes the user agent for accesses that happen on the same page.

And the fingerprinter could be super clever and look for features that your purported browser isn't supposed to support... And if your browser does support them, that's a strong identifier.

Re: Block Fingerprinting with Firefox

#182

Post by jake_the_third »

Nicksil wrote: post #161
jake_the_third wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be glad to forget Mozilla's past if they'd show that they have learned from them. The problem is that they haven't. In some cases, they've doubled down on them. I say this as someone who uses firefox on every device he can.

> The problem is that they haven't. How so? > In some cases, they've doubled down on them. Which cases?

Projecting political views onto browser users by default is a big one (new tab). Another is the limiting of user control by not allowing them to install third-party extensions. They also enable telemetry by default, and that not all telemetry can be disabled without going into about:config (i.e the settings in the preference page do not disable telemetry about telemetry itself; the browser can and will still send some telemetry even when telemetry is set as disabled).

I (and many others) use Firefox because we need a trustworthy browser, but issues like these take away from that trustworthiness.

Re: Block Fingerprinting with Firefox

#183

Post by skybrian »

RonanTheGrey wrote: post #177
skybrian wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? Link?

Fingerprinting is the primary way that Captcha decides whether to block you or not. Fingerprinting == security is the parallel they are drawing.

Ok, that makes sense. Not ideal, but captchas need to be written somehow.

Re: Block Fingerprinting with Firefox

#184

Post by floatingatoll »

Causality1 wrote: post #149
floatingatoll wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sure you’ll be fine, eventually - but that’s not guaranteed to stop them initially, or without a digital search of your entire computer, for example.

Do you have any evidence that any AdNauseam user has ever been arrested for ad fraud?

I am neither a lawyer nor do I work for any criminal justice entity, apologies. You’ll need to discuss this with a lawyer if you’re materially concerned about this line of reasoning coming to pass.

Re: Block Fingerprinting with Firefox

#185

Post by zwaps »

SquareWheel wrote: post #180
zwaps wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, taking it out of the important part and dropping it from Alphabet https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-dont-be-evil/2540... http://time.com/4060575/alphabet-google-dont-be-evil/ I am more right than I am wrong.

Alphabet never used "Don't be evil" as a motto. They have used "Do the right thing" since their inception.

Alphabet is Google's parent company and did not exist when "Don't be evil" was put at the top of Googles preamble.

Functionally, they took it out. Both by not using it in the new parent company, and deleting it out of the preamble of Google itself.

Yeah okay it still occurs somewhere. But "Do the right thing" as substitute to "Don't be evil" has clear implications except if you are terribly naive.

Re: Block Fingerprinting with Firefox

#186

Post by Causality1 »

floatingatoll wrote: post #184
Causality1 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any evidence that any AdNauseam user has ever been arrested for ad fraud?

I am neither a lawyer nor do I work for any criminal justice entity, apologies. You’ll need to discuss this with a lawyer if you’re materially concerned about this line of reasoning coming to pass.

I, personally, think you're full of it, but I'm offering you the opportunity to present evidence for your claim that using AdNauseam is "interstate ad fraud" that leads to arrests of its users. If I were the dev I'd consider those claims potentially libelous.

Re: Block Fingerprinting with Firefox

#187

Post by mobjack »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #95
messe wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you haven't already, change your user agent to get it down further.

You have to stick with known popular user agents. To mitigate tracking by UA you need a randomized user agent that changes periodically. Panopticlick won't be able to account for that in its stats. It's not a good idea to switch UA on every request since it will be hard to diagnose breakage caused by a site that rejects particular UAs.

Unless you use some obscure browser, it is better to use your real user agent. If you keep your browser and operating system up to date, chances are it will be one of the most popular ones.

Your UA will correlate with other means of fingerprinting you making you more common. Being clever can make things worse.

For example, the most common UA is from an iPhone, but the most common screen width is 1920 pixel. If you decide to make your UA an iPhone with a 1920 pixel screen, then you will be easily identified.

Re: Block Fingerprinting with Firefox

#189

Post by banachtarski »

zwaps wrote: post #142
banachtarski wrote: post #53

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.

You go to hotel.com and you don't get a good offer because they know exactly how much you are willing and able to pay. Sounds good? now do this for every other thing you buy online. Good enough?

I would classify that as "not sufficiently anonymized." I'm asking a serious question and don't really subscribe to dogma as being particularly convincing.

Thanks for the facetious argument and hand-waving though.

Re: Block Fingerprinting with Firefox

#190

Post by banachtarski »

treve wrote: post #59
banachtarski wrote: post #53

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…

I would like to see legislation that prevents storing data in a way that identifying information could be derived from a legitimate hacker. I think this is far more practical than a blanket hammer banning all forms of tracking, as we're stuck with advertising for better or worse. Might as well actually make things saner.
Post reply on HN