You can try https://www.amiunique.org/fp to get a view of all params can used to track you
Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
31–40 of 524 posts
Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
#32GDPR 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.
> GDPR should have been approached at browser level.
GDPR. isn't. about. browsers.
Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
#33Surely if your website collects data using browser fingerprinting this is covered by GDPR and you have to tell your visitors/ask for permission?
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/06/gdpr-and-browser-finge...
Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
#34[flagged]
What makes you think that this is a worthwhile addition to the world?
Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
#35GDPR 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.
I totally agree with you! .. and second: the website navigation would be smoother without those banners!
Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
#36I 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.
Sure, the advertisement graph only showed recall and not precision.
Maybe everyone gets the same hash! That'd explain their excellent results.
However, I doubt that's a problem in practice. I'd assume these finger printers know what they're doing. It certainly seems so.
How could one make an experiment collecting lots of these finger prints and determine the false positive rate?
Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
#37It is interesting that the site can fingerprint individual profiles/dir easily:
For example
chromium-browser --user-data-dir=/tmp/profile_A
chromium-browser --user-data-dir=/tmp/profile_A --incognito
chromium-browser --user-data-dir=/tmp/profile_B
chromium-browser --user-data-dir=/tmp/profile_B --incognito
For each command + its incognito it can detect them as separate profiles.
For ultimate privacy one needs to everytime launch browser with a new profile.
Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
#38[flagged]
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Worst ethics ever. I hope you go broke.
The main use case that we're tackling is financial fraud, scams, account takeover and more. - Over $32billion is stolen yearly online due to financial fraud, and browser fingerprinting has proven to be one of the most reliable way to combat sophisticated fraudsters
Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
#39I 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
> Trying to hide from fingerprinting makes your fingerprint more unique
Didn't seem so in the experiment in the article.
Sure they'll be able to place you in the bucket "tor user", but is that really more narrow than what you'd get without Tor?
Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought
#40[flagged]
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Worst ethics ever. I hope you go broke.
I disagree. I hope the guy becomes wildly successful, so a leak of his methods get in the news here so we know how to protect against that as well.
What you suggest is to put our heads in the sand instead. No, no and no. I prefer to be exposed to the worst so we learn how to protect ourselves. That's why this is Hacker News and not PutOurHeadInTheSand News.