21–30 of 61 posts
I don't know how useful is this to track unique visitors, the next month I will probably have a different fingerprint. All it takes is a new release of Firefox (different version in the User-Agent string) a new font or any plugin update. So with that fingerprint you can possibly identify me now, but you cannot track me over time.
I don't know how useful is this to track unique visitors, the next month I will probably have a different fingerprint. All it takes is a new release of Firefox (different version in the User-Agent string) a new font or any plugin update. So with that fingerprint you can possibly identify me now, but you cannot track me over time.
[1] For example, see "evercookie": http://samy.pl/evercookie/
The concept of a browser fingerprint being "unique" implies "worrying" in the sense that a user could then be tracked by their browser fingerprint. But simply installing a font, changing screen resolutions, upgrading Java or Flash ("Browser Plugin details") or entering/leaving daylight savings time will result in the fingerprint changing. So the browser fingerprint, as presented, isn't really a great way for websites…
Let's now imagine an entity that scrapes most of the internet traffic and has connections within facebook, google, etc. This company could easily figure out what pages you visit using a combination of browser fingerprint from the request header and IP. This can be tied to a person using accounts. They can even identify who within a household with the same IP visits which website.
The concept of a browser fingerprint being "unique" implies "worrying" in the sense that a user could then be tracked by their browser fingerprint. But simply installing a font, changing screen resolutions, upgrading Java or Flash ("Browser Plugin details") or entering/leaving daylight savings time will result in the fingerprint changing. So the browser fingerprint, as presented, isn't really a great way for websites…
I don't know how useful is this to track unique visitors, the next month I will probably have a different fingerprint. All it takes is a new release of Firefox (different version in the User-Agent string) a new font or any plugin update. So with that fingerprint you can possibly identify me now, but you cannot track me over time.
For a purpose like ad tracking, the period of time you need to track people is likely pretty short, as in from when they click on a banner or text link until they complete a purchase, so you can compare lots of data points to identify them. If you need to track for longer periods, like to retarget an ad to people who have completed purchases for x, then you would need to compare fewer, more stable points and hope you find a unique match.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it looks like if you could install a system font on a computer then you could create a unique fingerprint for that computer that is detectable by any website? I am uniquely identifiable out of the 3.7 million samples because of my system fonts.
Also the funny thing is you cannot be tracked by this, because whenever you install a new font, update a plugin, install a plugin etc, you change your unique data.
Also, they aren't particularly picky about keeping you, the trackee, forever uniquely-identifiable.
Consider this: when was the last time you (the non-average) or your grandmother (the average) installed a font?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it looks like if you could install a system font on a computer then you could create a unique fingerprint for that computer that is detectable by any website? I am uniquely identifiable out of the 3.7 million samples because of my system fonts.
Also the funny thing is you cannot be tracked by this, because whenever you install a new font, update a plugin, install a plugin etc, you change your unique data.
Even when you do make a change, you could still easily be tracked in many cases. If I see a new signature that I have never seen before that differs from an existing signature only by the version of a plugin, I can probably safely assume it's the same person, especially if I see that the plugin was updated between the last time I saw the existing signature and now.
I have a feeling that web developers are extra vulnerable to this type of tracking because we tend to install several useful developer extensions, and many of us have our own unique combination of extensions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also the funny thing is you cannot be tracked by this, because whenever you install a new font, update a plugin, install a plugin etc, you change your unique data.
I'm not sure how your conclusion follows from your premise. You are still trackable until you install a new font, update a plugin, install a plugin, etc. This may not happen for some time. Even when you do make a change, you could still easily be tracked in many cases. If I see a new signature that I have never seen before that differs from an existing signature only by the version of a plugin, I can probably safely…
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it looks like if you could install a system font on a computer then you could create a unique fingerprint for that computer that is detectable by any website? I am uniquely identifiable out of the 3.7 million samples because of my system fonts.
Also the funny thing is you cannot be tracked by this, because whenever you install a new font, update a plugin, install a plugin etc, you change your unique data.