• pulsewidth@lemmy.worldEnglish
    10 hours

    Fingerprints have been ‘the new cookies’ for like 20 years, so I think it’s starting to stretch the definition of ‘new’.

    • DevDave@piefed.socialEnglish
      25 minutes

      I believe quantcast had a white paper tracking an entity across multiple IPs and devices from 2010. that’s around when I worked for stalker tech companies. Anonymity is an illusion and has been for a while.

    • randy@lemmy.caEnglish
      6 hours

      But note this paragraph in the article:

      The ironic truth is, privacy extensions make you more unique, since fewer people have them. So a smart tracker could detect that, ignore the signals disrupted by the extension and focus on the ones that are not.

      The tracking mechanisms that this article uses are not the only ones available to actual bad actors.

      • potustheplant@feddit.nlEnglish
        3 hours

        If adoption spreads, that would no longer be true. So, instead of providing reasons not to use these types of measures, you’re just confirming that it’s the right path.

      • NoXPhasma@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5 hours

        I’m aware, should still be less unique than a fingerprint. Although there are much more invasive techniques, question is if developers actually use those, instead of going the easy route and detect most users anyway.

    • Epzillon@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8 hours

      been on uMatrix to default block all scripts, XHR and iframes for years but this would be a nice addition on top for the sites i actually need to enable it on. I mostly block all kinds of tracking but fingerprinting is always annoying

  • Schemen110676@lemmy.mlEnglish
    10 hours

    Finger prints are extremely invasive. They like a 100 percent identification of about any user.