Privacy
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
You don't want a randomised fingerprint, as that is relatively unique among a sea of fingerprints [1]. What you want is a fingerprint that's as similar to everyone else (generic) as possible; that's what Firefox's resist fingerprinting setting aims to do, and what the Tor browser does.
[1] There are many values you can't change, so the randomisation of the ones you can change could end up making you more unique ... think of it like having your language set to french but are based in the USA — that language setting can't uniquely identify the French in france, but will stick out like a sore thumb if set in shitsville Idaho. It's likely the same if you use firefox but have your user agent set to chrome; that's more rare and unique than not changing the user agent at all.
But isn't randomization supposed to give you a different unique fingerprint each time? So yes, you would be unique and easily tracked but only until your fingerprint changes
So what's the benefit of this over blending in each time?
That was addressed above, you ever see "identical" twins? They look exactly the same if you see then once, twice, 3 times, but if you see both of them constantly, you'll start seeing the small difference in them and then be able to identify who's who. Same exact thing.
I don't think there is any proven results, but I think the reason the EFF prefers Braves decision is the philosophy that there are so many data points that it could be possible to link you to it using the ones not standardized by anti fingerprinting.
Like ways to incorrectly describe someone. One describes a guy correctly but generically. One describes a guy with a lot of detail but the wrong race and two feet too short.
Yes it is, and that's why the EFF recommends it.
Where do the EFF recommend randomisation? From the EFF's surveillance self defence course.
This can be an effective method for breaking persistence, but it is important to note that a tracker may be able to determine that a randomization tool is being used, which can itself be a fingerprinting characteristic. Careful thought has to go into how randomizing fingerprinting characteristics will or will not be effective in combating trackers.
They don't directly recommend either... But then on https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/learn
In practice, the most realistic protection currently available is the Tor Browser, which has put a lot of effort into reducing browser fingerprintability. For day-to-day use, the best options are to run tools like Privacy Badger or Disconnect that will block some (but unfortunately not all) of the domains that try to perform fingerprinting, and/or to use a tool like NoScript( for Firefox), which greatly reduces the amount of data available to fingerprinters.
So the EFF seem to recommend generic over randomisation...
Maybe ask yourself why the Tor project decided against randomisation?
No, that's absolutely incorrect. You want a new fake fingerprint every single time someone asks your browser for your information. You want it to lie about your plugins, user agent, your fonts and your screen size. Bonus if you use common values, but not necessary.
The randomized data they're providing isn't static and it isn't the same from session to session.
100% White noise is a far better obfuscation than a 40% non-unique tracking ID. Yes, your data is lumped in with 47 million other users, but used in conjunction with static pieces of your data you become uncomfortably identifiable.
The whole point of the poster above is that you can't ramdomise 100%
Yeah... I don't know why a bunch of privacy bros think they know better than the CS and cryptography PhD's of the Tor project; the most advanced and complex privacy and anonymity preserving project in computing history.
this is the correct answer
I believe that Firefox has a mechanism where millions of users all have the same fingerprint, which makes the whole concept of browser fingerprinting useless.
Catch is you have to enable it manually
Purged by creator
It's under the shield on the left of the address bar, better protection against tracking enables this and a bunch of other features. Also on by default in private mode.
Purged by creator
Yes. Brave focuses on providing random data points each time it's asked (e.g. screen size). A hardened Firefox will try to provide a generic fingerprint.
Apples to oranges more or less, I'm unaware of any proof that one or the other is considerably better across the board. Though my gut does tell me that randomization is a lot better in the specific situation of regularly signing in and out of accounts.
mullvad browser which is a TOR browser fork, seems to defeat fingerprint.com per-session.
brave strict fingerprint protection on its own actually does not even do this afaik
I can't even get that page to load without a lot of JS allowed. I guess I'm not going to get my score anytime soon.
Weird, it usually works fine without JS.
It just keeps reloading and after 5 tries it gives up. I could probably go through each domain manually but I'd like it if they could let me keep the 3rd party domains disabled.