[flagged]
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Worst ethics ever. I hope you go broke.
Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
21–30 of 524 posts
Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
#22Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
#23If you don't pay attention to it you might be surprised how non dynamic your residential internet last mile DHCP assigned IP really is. It's not uncommon to go many months or a year with having it always renew to the same address. That, combined with all the fingerprinting mentioned in the article...
This would be one of the things about IPv6, we'd have lifetime fixed IP addresses (or address ranges at least). Wouldn't we?
There's "Privacy Extension" for that, from https://labs.ripe.net/author/johanna_ullrich/ipv6-addresses-...
> The IPv6 Privacy Extension is defined in RFC 4941. It is a format defining temporary addresses that change in regular time intervals; successive addresses appear unrelated to each other for outsiders and are a means of protection against address correlation. Their regular change is independent from the network prefix; this way, they protect against tracking of movement as well as against temporal correlation.
Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
#24"That's how web works."
Nah. I make an HTTP request and I get a response. That's how the web works. Perhaps people can have different opinions on "how the web works".
Web fingerprinting relies on a heap of assumptions. For example, that someone uses a web browser to make HTTP requests, that the web browser sends certain HTTP headers in a certain order, that the web browser runs Javascript, that it processes cookies, recognises HSTS response headers, and so on and so on.
If all the assumptions are true, maybe web fingerprinting is effective. But if the assumptions fail, maybe web fingerprinting does not work so well.
I have only ever read blog posts about web fingerprinting that take all the assumptions as true.
The majority of traffic on the internet is said to be "bots". Not web browsers running Javascript, processing cookies, and so on.
It seems to me that someone should discuss what happens when the assumptions fail.
Do advertisers care about computer users who do not use graphical browsers much. As such a user, IME, the answer is no.
(Interesting to see how defensive replies get. It's obvious the "tech" crowd intent to spy on web users is heavily reliant on certain assumptions to remain true forever. It shows that there is necessary pressure to keep web users using a "preferred" web browser and web ""features" that will subject them to "web fingerprinting". Perhaps the assumptions will always be true, conditions will never change, in the same way that interest rates could never change.)
Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
#25I wish browsers did more to combat this. There should be ways to randomize or normalize every bit of information they try to gather.
If Javascript is enabled there’s ultimately very little that can be done to prevent fingerprinting. If you don’t want to be fingerprinted then only allowing JS to run on allowlisted websites is the only way to truly be safe
Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
#26GDPR should have been approached at browser level. But there would not have been money to make for those that provide "compliant" banners. I guess the economy needed the stimulus.
It's not too late. The EU is breaking Apple's and Google's mobile app store monopolies next year with the Digital Markets Act.
Those same two companies effectively control the browser market. If there's political will in Europe, they can be forced to implement working privacy controls.
Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
#27I don't understand the test on this page. It says we should be worried because a fingerprinting website generates the same hash even after you clear your cache and site-data, and even if you go into a private tab. But I'm not overly concerned by this, provided I share that hash with other people. The worry would be that the hash is unique to me (i.e. a fingerprint), but I don't see the evidence that it is.
Here is evidence that the hash can be unique, or narrow down a small group of people
Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
#28I don't understand the test on this page. It says we should be worried because a fingerprinting website generates the same hash even after you clear your cache and site-data, and even if you go into a private tab. But I'm not overly concerned by this, provided I share that hash with other people. The worry would be that the hash is unique to me (i.e. a fingerprint), but I don't see the evidence that it is.
The likelihood that you have the same hash as other people is exceedingly small.
So if I fingerprint you on a site which is using my commercial fingerprint service, then I can sell your hash to other places and tell them all about your browsing habits. The more places run my fingerprinting service, the more data I can collect on you.
Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
#29I don't understand the test on this page. It says we should be worried because a fingerprinting website generates the same hash even after you clear your cache and site-data, and even if you go into a private tab. But I'm not overly concerned by this, provided I share that hash with other people. The worry would be that the hash is unique to me (i.e. a fingerprint), but I don't see the evidence that it is.
It's enough to narrow you down to a specific bucket. E.g. "affluent white young male in his 30s in a specific neighbourhood" and serve you ads and news. Collate with a few other sites (even airline checkouts and boarding pages have tracking), and you have a close enough match.
The worst part of this? Trying to hide from fingerprinting makes your fingerprint more unique
Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
#30If you don't pay attention to it you might be surprised how non dynamic your residential internet last mile DHCP assigned IP really is. It's not uncommon to go many months or a year with having it always renew to the same address. That, combined with all the fingerprinting mentioned in the article...
This would be one of the things about IPv6, we'd have lifetime fixed IP addresses (or address ranges at least). Wouldn't we?
DHCP and NAT are perfectly compatible with IPv6.