Firefox expands fingerprint protections • Hacker News Board

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#121

Post by chimeracoder » Tue, Nov 11, 2025, 9:02 PM UTC

notafox wrote: post #63

tgv wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could try to use profiles instead of private browsing. It keeps things separated.

Also profiles can be configured and used with CLI, no need for UI (old or new). ./firefox -CreateProfile "profile-name /home/user/.mozilla/firefox/profile-path/" ./firefox -profile "/home/user/.mozilla/firefox/profile-path/" And, you can run it directly, no need to launch default firefox profile: Given that /usr/bin/firefox is just a shell script, you can - create a copy of it, say, /usr/bin/firefox-hn - adjust the r…

> Also profiles can be configured and used with CLI, no need for UI (old or new).

AFAIK, they can only be created at the command line, not configured. If you want to do things like change default settings or install extensions from the Firefox Add-On store, you can't really do that at the command line.

You can do that by mucking around in the user.js file and manually adding .xpi files to the extensions/ subfolder, but that's probably stretching the definition of "done at the command-line" since most people aren't creating Puppet modules to manage Firefox profiles.

Perhaps someone knows an easier way to do this, though.

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#122

Post by dorgo » Tue, Nov 11, 2025, 9:04 PM UTC

firefax wrote: post #45

xnx wrote: post #11

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.

>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. I'd rather be trackable but secure -- the big draw for me is NoScript. Paired with uBlock, I'm safe from malvertising[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising#Examples_of_malic...

I was wondering why uBlock is not enough since you can block Javascript globally and re-enable per site. AI's answer:

Only things uBlock doesn’t replicate:

NoScript’s anti-XSS and anti-clickjacking heuristics (uBlock just blocks the sources, not sanitize payloads).

NoScript’s control over other active content types (e.g., WebGL, media codecs, etc).

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#123

Post by lone-cloud » Tue, Nov 11, 2025, 9:06 PM UTC

firefax wrote: post #45

xnx wrote: post #11

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.

>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. I'd rather be trackable but secure -- the big draw for me is NoScript. Paired with uBlock, I'm safe from malvertising[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising#Examples_of_malic...

You're more trackable by using NoScipt and there's no good reason to use it if you know how to properly use uBlock: https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/4.1-Extensions#-don... uBlock is a content blocker so it can do everything NoScript can if you learn its advanced UI usage. Using additional extensions makes you more trackable.

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#124

Post by ImPostingOnHN » Tue, Nov 11, 2025, 9:09 PM UTC

dpoloncsak wrote: post #119

godelski wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly confident I could sue that store owner for stalking if they were logging every time I entered that store and left, along with all my activities. I'm absolutely positive I could if they were getting other store owners to help them track me. What I don't understand is why this is unacceptable if they do it to a single person but perfectly normal if they do it to all their customers. IMO that should make thin…

Doesn't your (proverbial) Costco membership card track every time you enter and leave the store? Doesn't seem like anyone is suing them... Also, if they were logging you specifically, you may have grounds to stand on. But if they're logging every customer that comes in/out (like websites do), I think there is a lot less grounds for a restraining order or anything Edit: Found out I'm using 'proverbial' wrong but I thi…

> Doesn't your (proverbial) Costco membership card track every time you enter and leave the store

No (you have to use it at the register for Costco to know you were there),

and they don't track your every movement in store either,

and they don't track your every movement outside the store either,

and there isn't a standard way to say "I don't want this" which they nonetheless choose to ignore.

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#125

Post by godelski » Tue, Nov 11, 2025, 9:13 PM UTC

dpoloncsak wrote: post #119

godelski wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly confident I could sue that store owner for stalking if they were logging every time I entered that store and left, along with all my activities. I'm absolutely positive I could if they were getting other store owners to help them track me. What I don't understand is why this is unacceptable if they do it to a single person but perfectly normal if they do it to all their customers. IMO that should make thin…

Doesn't your (proverbial) Costco membership card track every time you enter and leave the store? Doesn't seem like anyone is suing them... Also, if they were logging you specifically, you may have grounds to stand on. But if they're logging every customer that comes in/out (like websites do), I think there is a lot less grounds for a restraining order or anything Edit: Found out I'm using 'proverbial' wrong but I thi…

(I get the idea)

Costco is much more like the Joe's Corner Market. I'm only dealing with Costco. It is a bit more invasive than Joe's Corner Market, but I'll admit that I have much more trust for Costco given their history. Like Joe, Costco isn't following me around the store, unless I explicitly ask for their help finding something. They similarly won't follow me outside unless I'm explicitly asking for something like a delivery or some other service. It is always explicit and I'm always aware that I'm being "watched".

But the key difference is that Costco isn't sharing that data with Walmart, Facebook, and others. There is some tracking and I definitely don't like that, but there's a huge difference in going to Costco.com vs Facebook.com or even Google.com. Heading to Costco.com uBlock hits me with 9 blocks. Heading to google.com I get 17 and then it is constantly rising. In the time to write these few sentences it has already hit 30. Meanwhile, costco is still at 9. I mean I'm literally on google.com sitting and staring at a search page doing nothing. There's a much more aggressive and invasive attitude here.

Mind you, nuance and intent matter very much. Without them we wouldn't be able to differentiate a partner you live with and a stalker. Similarly expectations of trust. I'm glad you're asking the question of getting the steelman and pressing, but we must make it clear that if we're going to brush away detail and be dismissive of the nuances then we are contriving an environment where we would be unable to differentiate these things. But again, the consequences of that contrived setting is that we would not be able to differentiate someone's husband/wife from a stalker. And that result is beyond laughable. So maybe the better question is to ask where these lines are drawn. I'm not sure there's an easy answer, but I'm certain it is important.

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#126

Post by godelski » Tue, Nov 11, 2025, 9:19 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #118

godelski wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My example of access is just a clearer example of laziness. Maybe they were tracking but it seems unlikely, right? If they were, why not block? Laziness is a much better explanation. I can get feedback with access, I can't get feedback with tracking. That's why I mentioned access.

They probably weren't tracking you, that was probably a case of directing a user toward a supported browser for customer support purposes. I would imagine that was a requirement in somebody's Jira ticket, solved with a few lines of code. By contrast, tracking people on the web is a multibillion dollar industry, and there are out of the box commercial libraries that do very sophisticated tracking. None of these soluti…

The announcement came with the claim about DRM. So I believe there was some "legal" issue about it. I'm also sure they didn't actually care that much.

  > By contrast, tracking people on the web is a multibillion dollar industry

Of which Netflix is a part of.

  > The vast majority of websites by count are not doing anything sophisticated. But some are.

And this is my point. Somewhere like fingerprint.com is trying to use all the tools available. But most places aren't. Facebook and Google? Sure, I buy that. But mentioning that many places are lazy is not the same thing. It is a game where we can't win completely and we still need to let people know that small gains are still meaningful. A major problem we face with privacy is that people feel so powerless that it is useless to fight back. But that's not true. Just because your bulletproof vest doesn't stop a missile doesn't make it useful. A bulletproof vest that only stops small caliber is still better than no vest, since most shots are small caliber. Pareto is still alive and well here.

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#127

Post by tlavoie » Tue, Nov 11, 2025, 9:23 PM UTC

y-c-o-m-b wrote: post #14

I 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…

The "Temporary Containers" extension is great here, allowing pretty easy compromise between different buckets of sites. I'll have some personal ones that I log into, others go specifically into a snoop container, and the rest get temporary ones that evaporate when closed. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/temporary-con...

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#128

Post by kcrwfrd_ » Tue, Nov 11, 2025, 9:26 PM UTC

dpoloncsak wrote: post #119

godelski wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly confident I could sue that store owner for stalking if they were logging every time I entered that store and left, along with all my activities. I'm absolutely positive I could if they were getting other store owners to help them track me. What I don't understand is why this is unacceptable if they do it to a single person but perfectly normal if they do it to all their customers. IMO that should make thin…

Doesn't your (proverbial) Costco membership card track every time you enter and leave the store? Doesn't seem like anyone is suing them... Also, if they were logging you specifically, you may have grounds to stand on. But if they're logging every customer that comes in/out (like websites do), I think there is a lot less grounds for a restraining order or anything Edit: Found out I'm using 'proverbial' wrong but I thi…

Costco membership is more like voluntarily accepting cookies.

Even more than that, it’s purchasing a membership that requires authentication when you use the store.

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#129

Post by rolandog » Tue, Nov 11, 2025, 9:27 PM UTC

sudobash1 wrote: post #99

recursive4 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiousity, how would you steelman the argument that fingerprinting is no different than a store owner, standing behind the counter, taking note of the faces of who enters his store, and maintaining a log?

To make that analogy closer to the Internet reality, I would say that Internet tracking is more like a cabal of shop-keepers, librarians, neighbors, utility pole workers, and so on who are keeping track of all the faces, all their habits, what they look at, what they say, who they interact with, and share this information amongst themselves, recording it in perpetuity. They also share details with the police and anyo…

Exactly. The "shopkeeper" is cross-correlating my sleeping habits, my browsing data, 27 data-leaks, my credit score history, the proximity of other devices and WiFis, the pictures my in-laws posted of a get-together, sentiment analysis of voice messages...

All while showing me 2 advertisements before I enter the store, trying to trick me into clicking a mysterious "track me more" button while I try to get toothpaste, and never lowering the price of pasta for me because my wife mentioned on a post that she loves eating Italian.

And he's the town's least creepy shopkeeper.

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#130

Post by kalaksi » Tue, Nov 11, 2025, 9:29 PM UTC

y-c-o-m-b wrote: post #14

I 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

You're in luck since EU's GDPR is about informing users of PII harvesting and consent in general (among other things). So the banner is not only about cookies. And I think nowadays there are similar regulations elsewhere.