Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought

bitestring.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 524 posts

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought

#351

Post by illiarian »

jefftk wrote: post #317
illiarian wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But maybe it doesn't look as slow from the outside? Google ships 400 new APIs per year. It readily ships API within a month after it spits out a half-prepared spec and asks other browsers for input. Even benign changes like CSS headline balancing was sent to TAG three weeks ago, and will ship a month from now. From the outside this is neck-breaking speed with utter disregard for anything. But when user privacy is c…

> Even benign changes like CSS headline balancing was sent to TAG three weeks ago The "text-wrap: balance" proposal is not new, though? I see it in the 2019-11-13 draft spec: https://www.w3.org/TR/2019/WD-css-text-4-20191113/#valdef-te...

Perhaps, but it was sent for TAG review only three weeks ago, and already with an intent to ship in a month.

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought

#353

Post by boomlinde »

aktuel wrote: post #305

If I have a certain phone model with updates applied. Is there something that distinguishes me from other people with the same phone and browser version other than the IP address?

Do you have the same localization settings? The same timezone? The same browser settings? The same screen orientation? The same model of bluetooth headset? These are all likely factors in a client-side fingerprint.

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought

#354

Post by domh »

largepeepee wrote: post #344
domh wrote: post #342

I just tried to turn on `resistFingerprinting` in Firefox and it meant that my zoom preference for HN got reset every time I opened a new page (I have it set to 120% by default). Anyone know why? Bug?

You don't want to be fingerprinted means default options for everything Firefox can do it on

Ohhh that makes sense! Meaning there's a way for a website to detect my zoom level? I wonder how? Checking calculated font size via JS or something? Ugh

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought

#355

Post by jefftk »

illiarian wrote: post #351
jefftk wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even benign changes like CSS headline balancing was sent to TAG three weeks ago The "text-wrap: balance" proposal is not new, though? I see it in the 2019-11-13 draft spec: https://www.w3.org/TR/2019/WD-css-text-4-20191113/#valdef-te...

Perhaps, but it was sent for TAG review only three weeks ago, and already with an intent to ship in a month.

It looks like that was just because it was very uncontroversial, though? https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/822

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought

#356

Post by Tajnymag »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #348

Anyone know if there's been any forks of Chrome that enforce more privacy features? I know Chromium is a thing, but I doubt the builds for Chromium (except when tweaked by some Linux distros) do much like Firefox does. I only use Chrome to test some things, or to create a completely isolated browser session disconnected from my use of Firefox.

Brave, Iridium, Bromite comes to mind

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought

#357

Post by jonhohle »

Until everyday people realize they’re being stalked, I don’t know what will change. I am seriously thinking about trying to go through the proposition process in my state to forbid selling of data (this should already run afoul of wiretapping laws, imho).

I thought having an ad campaign that targeted subgroups very specifically and boldly might be enough drum up public interest. Something like: “Hello $name from $city. How did $recent_embarrasing_purchase work out? I hope you enjoy your birthday in $birth_month.” And then a link to the proposed policy.

Unfortunately, marketers have neither scruples nor the ability to control themselves and have captured an asymmetric advantage. Technologists do what they do, preoccupied with whether or not they could, not stopping to think if they should. It seems like legislation may be the only remaining option.

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought

#358

Post by jonhohle »

zamubafoo wrote: post #63

As the years pass, I keep thinking back and realize that Richard Stallman was right all along: > For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer. (I also have not net connection much of the time.) To look at page I send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back to me. It is very efficient use of my time, but it is slow in real time.

A more modern equivalent might be using something like archivebox instead of browsing directly.

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought

#359

Post by d-z-m »

chaosite wrote: post #333
d-z-m wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is FUD. As others have said, been using RFP for years and barely noticed.

I'm not saying don't use it, I also have it turned on. I'm saying that it has consequences, and you might not immediately realize it's related to RFP.

There certainly are consequences. However, you said it "breaks a lot of the web" including "the back button".

Maybe this is the case with some very complicated SPA type sites, but personally, I've never seen this.

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought

#360

Post by medstrom »

db48x wrote: post #150
magicalhippo wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure fonts and text is hard. But none of that is needed for basic surfing of the web.

In that case you should use Firefox, and turn on “resistFingerprinting”. It’s not perfect, but it’s approaching real privacy.

Or the Arkenfox config (https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js), which enables resistFingerprinting among other essentials. In this kind of game, a community config is exactly what you want.
Post reply on HN