91–100 of 219 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we're exploring the space of "they're lying" isn't a simpler explanation be that they're lying about their revenue?
The consequences for lying about revenue as a public company are many orders of magnitude worse than lying about compliance with some private contract or TOS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44169115 They found sneaky ways on Android. There is no way they aren't trying to do so on iOS. One must always assume malice with anything Meta.
I find it is useful to do so for all corporations.
This isn't exactly browser fingerprinting (though it may involve browser fingerprinting.) But the biggest open question I have right now is: what is Meta doing to get around Apple's iOS privacy protections? A couple of years ago, Apple launched App Tracking Transparency as a way to reduce tracking across their iOS app ecosystem. People predicted that this would be devastating for companies like Meta and Snap, and it…
IP addresses are quite static. Most phones and laptops come "home" once a day and get attached to the home IP. Do it for long enough and you can household all the other IP v6s, MACs etc. that are untethered.
MACs are always randomized, even when connecting to the same network. At least as far as modern devices go.
Am I wrong?
> go to about:config and setting privacy.resistFingerprinting = true in your Firefox browser Two questions jump to mind: Why isn't this the default in Firefox? What is the downside? I.e., what can break by enabling this parameter?
> What is the downside Just of the top of my head: - Timezone is set to UTC which means any web calendar input becomes confusing at best - Canvases turn into random stripes, which leaves artefacts all over many websites - Some websites outright block you as bots (twitch does this) - Some web APIs break, which can be a pain if you're web apps that rely on them You can add websites to a whitelist to avoid the downsides…
> go to about:config and setting privacy.resistFingerprinting = true in your Firefox browser Two questions jump to mind: Why isn't this the default in Firefox? What is the downside? I.e., what can break by enabling this parameter?
> What is the downside Just of the top of my head: - Timezone is set to UTC which means any web calendar input becomes confusing at best - Canvases turn into random stripes, which leaves artefacts all over many websites - Some websites outright block you as bots (twitch does this) - Some web APIs break, which can be a pain if you're web apps that rely on them You can add websites to a whitelist to avoid the downsides…
and the worst part is that this didn't changed the fingerprint generated by mentioned here site just increases suspect level to 9
From my experience, fingerprint.com isn't really the best at fingerprinting. The scariest one to me is creepjs https://abrahamjuliot.github.io/creepjs/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those obnoxious "cookie" dialogs? Yes, they cover fingerprinting as well. E.g. some innocent company wants to keep your precise geolocation data for 12 years: https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541 Cookie banners were never about cookies or privacy. The industry designed them with some very explicit goals in mind: to force users to opt-in to pervasive tracking, and to blame "how unusable web has become" on…
Cookie banners were a result of an EU ePrivacy "cookie law" from 2002, 16yrs prior to GDPR and before fingerprinting.
Browser fingerprinting is one of those things that should be outright illegal - it is far more of a threat than tracking cookies ever were. But it hasn't permeated the public consciousness like cookies have, so regulators seem to ignore it.
It should be illegal, but we also need technical prevention of it, because the internet is global and goes through too many jurisdictions to really regulate. Plus, fingerprinting tech would get developed for criminal organizations or intelligence agencies anyway.
whether this is justified is of course subjective