391–400 of 524 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me this seems extremely elitist. Non-technical people deserve to have their personal data stolen because they don't know about javascript for example?
> Non-technical people deserve to have their personal data stolen Nobody said that. "My defenses work" != "my defenses should be necessary".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps, but it was sent for TAG review only three weeks ago, and already with an intent to ship in a month.
Isn’t that the point of the RFC approach to standardization? “Here’s what we think should be done, with the PoC being what we’re already doing ourselves in production; feel free to try our impl out, in order to better notice the design flaws in practice, so that we can talk out what changes could be made before it becomes a de-facto standard we’re all stuck with”? SPDY → HTTP2 was a great example of Google doing exac…
The problem with having anything in "production" on the web is that you can neither update it or change it because people will rely on it.
The idea behind web standards is that there should be at least two independent implementations, tested behind a flag, with iterations on design, before it becomes a full standard.
Chrome's approach for the past several years has been: spit out a half-completed spec, "ask" other browser for input.... and ship it in prod a month later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah? If they don't know how to operate a computer then they shouldn't be operating one. The same I would feel if someone without a licence crashed their car.
Using the web while being unfamiliar with Javascript is not analogous to driving without a license. It's closer to driving without being a mechanic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually did exactly that a while ago. Where I worked, we didn't have internet access but we had email access, so as a workaround, I made an email server on my home machine that fetched web pages for me. A coworker took it even further and made a proxy server that automated the process so you could actually browse the web, although very slowly. Just to say that Stallman is not the only one with this idea. It was in…
In Germany there is a "WhatsApp" SIM [1], where you have to pay for normal internet use, but WhatsApp texts are free of charge. With a technique which you described, you could probably abuse a phone with this SIM as a "free" hot spot with infinite data. [1] https://www.whatsappsim.de/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if you disable JS, cause the website then can't see any of these customizations. That's adorable. I guess you're not old enough to remember when we used to track people with things like invisible pixels. Or todays equivalent: testing CSS parameters. Neither require JavaScript, and there are a hundred other non-JavaScript methods.
Hah! I used to embed invisible pixels for our marketing department decades ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC they do try to claim it applies outside of Europe; they say their laws apply to any entity processing data of EU citizens, regardless of where the data or website actually lie.
I think it's well within the rights of the EU to legislate in which way the data of its citizens is processed. If your product or service is accessible to EU citizens, in the EU market, then you need to abide by the laws of the EU. It's no different for physical or virtual products.
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 $cit…
People are such dumb fucking cattle that they'll lash out at you rather than the data brokers or the software vendors who ratted them out though
Ha! I followed the instructions and went to fingerprint.com and it all 'crashed' because I had JavaScript turned off—that's my normal default setting. I have five different browsers on my smartphone and three on the PC all sans JS and none of them are Chrome. Also, normal operation is to automatically delete all cookies at session's end. My smartphone and PCs are de-googleized and firewalled and I never see ads in my…
To me this seems extremely elitist. Non-technical people deserve to have their personal data stolen because they don't know about javascript for example?
At this point I'm 100% OK with us being the only ones able to protect ourselves. We warned them and they didn't care. Allow them to remain uncaring. We don't have to help everyone. People must want to be helped.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not that easy to "present a fingerprint" without compromising the user experience. And that's exactly what I'm talking about. > what about things like viewport size and font rendering? Not much can be done about viewport size, but a browser could easily ship with 2 fonts (one serif and one sans serif) and only allow access to those.
“Font rendering” is a different thing than “what fonts you have.” Font rendering is about how fonts are drawn to the screen. The trick is to draw some words to a and then pixel-peep the result. Different OSes and browsers use different font renderers and font hinting logic; fonts will even render differently on a different-DPI screen.