Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought (2023) • Hacker News Board

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought (2023)

#141

Post by rafram » Thu, Jul 24, 2025, 4:09 PM UTC

Beijinger wrote: post #139

rafram wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if the site loads 100 iframes, it can figure out the distribution of values that your browser returns, which doesn’t change, and is likely to be close to unique until many people are using the same setup as you. (Or it can just use properties of the extension like monkey-patched function toString() outputs to identify its users, which, again, narrows it down to a very small group.)

Yes! You are unique among the 4162412 fingerprints in our entire dataset. Yes! You are unique among the 4162649 fingerprints in our entire dataset. Two visits... https://amiunique.org/

Yeah, you get the exact same results in two separate incognito sessions in stock Chrome. They don't immediately add your fingerprint to their database. (And that site isn't using the state of the art in fingerprinting - check https://fingerprint.com/ for a slightly better indicator.)

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought (2023)

#142

Post by Yeul » Thu, Jul 24, 2025, 4:11 PM UTC

OhioMan2943 wrote: post #59

amelius wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need regulators with more balls. And more brains. This privacy theater is becoming very painful to watch.

People with ideas are a dying breed. The west doesn't have a fraction of the idealism of the 80s and 90s

Those people all sold out and now live in California mansions.

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought (2023)

#143

Post by Yeul » Thu, Jul 24, 2025, 4:14 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #45

mysterypie wrote: post #38

> go to about:config and setting privacy.resistFingerprinting = true in your Firefox browser Two questions jump to mind: Why isn't this the default in Firefox? What is the downside? I.e., what can break by enabling this parameter?

It's isn't the default because the countermeasures cause a lot of side-effects. If it were on by default, new users would probably think the browser is broken or buggy. Here's what the settings do and what sort of side-effects you might experience: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/resist-fingerprinting

Yeah I have it on but I use a second browser for banking and government business.

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought (2023)

#144

Post by owenthejumper » Thu, Jul 24, 2025, 4:14 PM UTC

There are legitimate use cases of fingerprinting, like bot management. Unfortunately too many people abuse the system

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought (2023)

#145

Post by dehrmann » Thu, Jul 24, 2025, 4:17 PM UTC

Vinnl wrote: post #27

So, one thing I don't quite get about fingerprinting: > For example, websites can see web browser version, number of CPUs on your device, screen size, number of touchpoints, video/audio codecs, operating system and many other details If, for example, I upgrade my web browser in two weeks (i.e. I get a new version number), doesn't that mean that the site has lost me? Sites like https://coveryourtracks.eff.org seem to…

It depends if they hash the data points or send them unprocessed. If they're unprocessed, they can associate two fingerprints where only the browser has changed.

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought (2023)

#146

Post by dehrmann » Thu, Jul 24, 2025, 4:18 PM UTC

voidUpdate wrote: post #4

How does web fingerprinting work with things like iPhones, where many people have the same screen, browser, os version, etc?

Not as well. This is especially true for iPhones where there are fewer SKUs and aggressively pushed updates.

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought (2023)

#147

Post by _lvbh » Thu, Jul 24, 2025, 4:20 PM UTC

NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #29

bellajbadr wrote: post #25

People who are recommending Tor/torBrowser the last versions are enabling system spoofing which helps to fingerprints you. Also Javascript can just help to fingerprint you easily even if the browser doesn't

how does system spoofing fingerprint you, if it spoofs same way for all tor users?

Must be a typo. They are disabling user agent spoofing for operating systems (but not versions)

Not a great move imo

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought (2023)

#148

Post by kstrauser » Thu, Jul 24, 2025, 4:21 PM UTC

vel0city wrote: post #106

kytazo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression would be the opposite. IPv6s get constantly rotated by most ISPs. MACs are always randomized, even when connecting to the same network. At least as far as modern devices go. Am I wrong?

> IPv6s get constantly rotated by most ISPs I've had the same prefix for five years now. And yeah, sure, my device cycles through ephemeral IPv6 addresses often, but always within the same prefix. Group IPs somewhere between /64s and /56 and you'll essentially get a household identity, at least for a few days to a few years.

Yep. The addresses in an IPv6 /56 or so are about the same as an IPv4 address as far as identifying a single location.

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought (2023)

#149

Post by Beijinger » Thu, Jul 24, 2025, 4:22 PM UTC

rafram wrote: post #141

Beijinger wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! You are unique among the 4162412 fingerprints in our entire dataset. Yes! You are unique among the 4162649 fingerprints in our entire dataset. Two visits... https://amiunique.org/

Yeah, you get the exact same results in two separate incognito sessions in stock Chrome. They don't immediately add your fingerprint to their database. (And that site isn't using the state of the art in fingerprinting - check https://fingerprint.com/ for a slightly better indicator.)

https://fingerprint.com/demo/

Yes, fingerprint.com realizes that I am the same visitor. But ONLY IF I access it from the same IP address. This is impressive, but in the end not so much. They claim VPN does not matter for them. It does. Probably one of the last things that makes my browser identifiable.

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought (2023)

#150

Post by Hilift » Thu, Jul 24, 2025, 4:23 PM UTC

matthewdgreen wrote: post #22

This isn't exactly browser fingerprinting (though it may involve browser fingerprinting.) But the biggest open question I have right now is: what is Meta doing to get around Apple's iOS privacy protections? A couple of years ago, Apple launched App Tracking Transparency as a way to reduce tracking across their iOS app ecosystem. People predicted that this would be devastating for companies like Meta and Snap, and it…

> what is Meta doing to get around Apple's iOS privacy protections?

Money always finds a way. Everyone thought the changes made a few years ago would hurt Meta but they make $70 billion net profit. At a minimum, they only need a good relationship with advertisers, and a (sort of measurable) increase from a campaign. Also ads are different now. One address may see the same five seconds of an ad hundreds of times. That is a much easier ecosystem to correlate targets through data enrichment.