This is a good use of Firefox resources. Unfortunately Firefox is at a natural disadvantage for fingerprinting by virtue of being used by such a small number of users.
Firefox expands fingerprint protections
11–20 of 177 posts
Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections
#12This is a good use of Firefox resources. Unfortunately Firefox is at a natural disadvantage for fingerprinting by virtue of being used by such a small number of users.
Interesting. So when you try resist fingerprinting. If you dont go all the way you're at risk of making your differentiations smaller?
Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections
#13It’s a bit annoying that Firefox by default breaks all sites that use canvas imageData API. There is no permission for that, so no user-friendly way to ask for consent either.
Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections
#14I exclusively use private browsing, but I know that doesn't do much in preventing tracking, so it's nice to see this finally starting to roll out.
The fact that I have to go to great lengths to browse anonymously - and companies desperately try to circumvent my genuine decision to opt out of their tracking - tells me everything I need to know about those companies. Words like sleezy, shady, and predatory come to mind.
I would love to see this taken one step further and have states/countries prevent companies from tracking me altogether if I reject their cookies, but I fear it's more likely those companies will lobby to prevent Firefox from protecting us.
Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections
#15I use FF and I paid for NYTimes. I was logged in, yet NYTimes constantly flagged my browser with a persistent captcha I couldn't bypass for months (across 2 different machines). It thought I was a bot because of the privacy features. So I cancelled my subscription using my phone.
Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections
#16I use FF and I paid for NYTimes. I was logged in, yet NYTimes constantly flagged my browser with a persistent captcha I couldn't bypass for months (across 2 different machines). It thought I was a bot because of the privacy features. So I cancelled my subscription using my phone.
Ha - I thought you were gonna say you switched browsers.
Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections
#17This is a good use of Firefox resources. Unfortunately Firefox is at a natural disadvantage for fingerprinting by virtue of being used by such a small number of users.
Interesting. So when you try resist fingerprinting. If you dont go all the way you're at risk of making your differentiations smaller?
As an oversimplified example:
If a website has 100 visitors, and 99 of them use Chrome, and 1 user uses Firefox, it doesn't matter how good their fingerprinting resistance is, they're always the one using Firefox.
Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections
#18This is a good use of Firefox resources. Unfortunately Firefox is at a natural disadvantage for fingerprinting by virtue of being used by such a small number of users.
I often think about this in connection with my user agent. I am sure it helps identify me. If I spoofed a Chrome/Windows UA that would probably be better from a privacy perspective. But if we all do that then web designers will never know that we exist. I want people to know there are Firefox and Linux users out there.
Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections
#19I use FF and I paid for NYTimes. I was logged in, yet NYTimes constantly flagged my browser with a persistent captcha I couldn't bypass for months (across 2 different machines). It thought I was a bot because of the privacy features. So I cancelled my subscription using my phone.
Ha - I thought you were gonna say you switched browsers.
I just found a way to bypass the paywall on a web browser when I want to read an article. Which I figured was a easier solution than emailing customer service over a technical matter (never fun).
Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections
#20I use FF and I paid for NYTimes. I was logged in, yet NYTimes constantly flagged my browser with a persistent captcha I couldn't bypass for months (across 2 different machines). It thought I was a bot because of the privacy features. So I cancelled my subscription using my phone.
Is there a reason to force all these bot checks on logged in accounts that are paying you money other than insanity? Surely you could just have a max monthly bandwidth limit per account and just stop worrying about this?