You’re right that the average person doesn't care about fingerprinting, but that’s exactly the problem. To me, browser fingerprinting isn't just a technical quirk, it’s a violation of privacy that effectively erases your ability to be anonymous, regardless of whether you have a VPN or not.

If we let OS-level ID checks become the standard because people don't care, we’re essentially legitimising that tracking. My red line isn't just a government log of my identity, it’s the fact that the tech is being built to make that log possible in the first place. Once the infrastructure is there, the incidental proof of identity quickly becomes the primary feature.

It’s less about a "scan" and more about the "handshake." Look at things like Windows 11 requiring a TPM and Secure Boot, or the Microsoft Pluton chip being baked into newer CPUs.

They don't need to inspect your code. They just need a cryptographic "attestation" that says your hardware and kernel are in a "known good" state. If your DIY kernel doesn't have the right digital signature from the manufacturer, the service whether it's a bank or a Netflix stream, simply says "computer says no" and denies the connection.

Sure, we'll find workarounds, but for 99% of people, that "invisible border" is a brick wall.

I think that’s a dangerous assumption to make. If the OS is tied to your physical identity, the 'VPN' layer becomes much less of a shield. Once the kernel level is 'compliant' with an ID check, the metadata being leaked or even the hardware ID itself makes anonymity a lot harder to maintain.

You’re right about the social media risk, but the OS is the foundation. If you give up the keys to the house, it doesn't matter how many extra locks you put on the individual room doors. That 'disappointing risk' is exactly how the 'invisible borders' start getting built.

The systemd age-storage drama was a massive red flag. It showed how easily a "safety" mandate can be used as a wedge into the lower levels of the stack.

My worry is exactly what you said: politicians creating "compliance" requirements that are fundamentally toxic to the GPL or the way community distros operate. It’s not about making Linux better; it’s about making it legally unviable for anyone but a massive corporation to maintain. Digital enshittification via regulation.

t’s the "corporate enshittification" cycle. Once Linux becomes a viable market for the mass-market predators, they won't just move in, they'll try to legally mandate the bulldozing.

It is a myth, always has been. But the worry isn't the "Year of Linux" happening, it's the corporate version of it being forced on us via regulation.

Thanks for the feedback. You’re right, it’s really just scanning for known extension IDs, not poking around your entire computer. Saying “computer scan” might sound a bit dramatic, but the privacy risk is still pretty serious given what info they can guess from those extensions.

About the home lab and network side — I get that LinkedIn isn’t scanning your whole network or anything. What I meant is more about how you can block or filter those sneaky requests at the network level, like with DNS blocking or firewall rules, so they never even get sent out. It’s not a classic home lab threat, but if you’re running your own DNS or network filters, it’s a handy extra layer to keep things tighter.

Sure, switching browsers or faking your user agent works too, but not everyone wants to give up Chromium or LinkedIn completely. That’s why I mentioned a few different ways to protect yourself.

Appreciate the note on wording — I just wanted to show why this isn’t just some minor browser oddity and why it’s worth thinking about from a privacy and network defence angle.

Spot on. If you can see a user has certain VPN clients, IDEs, or specific advocacy tools installed, you've essentially built a psychological profile of an employee’s home environment without them ever clicking 'Accept'. It’s a massive GDPR Article 9 violation (Special Category data) hidden in plain sight.

Mostly, yes. Firefox doesn't use the specific Chromium internal resource API that LinkedIn is exploiting for this. However, since the script relies on hidden GET requests, I still recommend Multi-Account Containers to isolate LinkedIn entirely, plus a custom uBlock Origin filter just to be sure.

I get it. I spend more time in the CLI than writing, so I've been using tools to help structure my posts. Clearly, that 'polished' look just comes across as robotic slop here. I'll stick to the raw technical details from now on. Thanks for the feedback.

Depends! Bazzite on ROG Ally X, Debian for servers, CachyOS for my desktop and laptop and Fedora for my sons PC

Fair play, you’ve done a proper deep dive there. I’ll hold my hands up—I’m a sysadmin, not a journalist. I use tools to help structure my thoughts because my natural writing style is about as readable as a kernel panic. As for the 'social media' bit, the share buttons are a default plugin I haven't stripped out yet, and Mastodon is the only place I actually hang out because it's federated. I'm just a guy in a home lab trying to share some tech stories; sorry if the 'robotic' prose put you off