Live data from Hacker News

Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought

bitestring.com

521–524 of 524 posts

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought

#521
Strange, `privacy.resistFingerprinting = true` did not solve the issue for me, i'm still fingerprinted by https://fingerprint.com/. Even after clearing all cache and restarting Firefox.

Adding the extensions `Canvasblocker` and `Temporariy Containers` did solve the issue though.

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought

#522
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My bank phoned me last summer. I'd authenticated with my usual two factors but a new browser fingerprint, then transferred a large sum to a new recipient. The bank blocked the transfers I did thay day, then phoned me to check whether I'd been phished, suffered a keylogger attack or something.

So you were inconvenienced as a result of a false positive derived from tracking. Hardly a great argument.

You can make anything seem poor if you mention the negative effect and not the positive one.

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought

#523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will admit that it always made me confused as to why browser has access to detailed hardware information. I can understand OS. I can understand resolution. I can rationalize GPU. I don't understand though why it should be able to access .. well, everything about the machine. edit: It is still impressive. Even with the firefox settings on, the website was able to identify me. I am not entirely certain how I want to…

I got me on iPhone through VPN change, clear cache, private window, and reboot. I know what to think about this… I fucking hate it.

So i just found that the "SnowHaze" browser prevents fingerprinting on fingerprint.com and https://browserleaks.com/canvas

https://apps.apple.com/nl/app/snowhaze/id1121026941?l=en

https://github.com/snowhaze/SnowHaze-iOS

Re: Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought

#524
post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the misunderstandings about the GDPR (even many smart people don't get it) prove that designing and writing such a law is difficult and the result has to be complex. IMO the GDPR is good. But… it is poorly understood by many affected people . IMO if a law is poorly understood by the people it affects, then one should assume the law to be at fault, not the people. IMO it's good but I'm not happy. 4×IMO! Wow.

> IMO the GDPR is good. But… it is poorly understood by many affected people . IMO if a law is poorly understood by the people it affects, then one should assume the law to be at fault, not the people. You are assuming that it has to be either of them who is at fault. In reality there are third-parties who have been spewing FUD in order to confuse people about the law.

I do indeed assume good intentions. Doing that is one of the principles by which I live.
Post reply on HN