every site wants it but it can easily fingerprint you
not everyone wants or can live in a cabin in the woods off grid
what do you do
every site wants it but it can easily fingerprint you
not everyone wants or can live in a cabin in the woods off grid
what do you do
14 Comments
damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1d
Allow the JavaScript, block the API calls at the DNS level. I use NextDNS but you can use PiHole.
CameronDev@programming.dev · 8 pts · 1d
Blocking JS is a fingerprint, and a pretty unique one. If you care about your privacy, forget about fingerprinting and instead mitigate its impacts instead.
strawberry_enjoyer42@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 1d
Any suggestions of what that might look like?
CameronDev@programming.dev · 5 pts · 1d
Adblock, incognito tabs, VPN. Probably other good alternatives as well.
If they can't sell you ads, fingerprinting you doesnt gain them much.
And if you can reset/perturb your fingerprint enough via incognito/vpn, they can't track you for dynamic pricing shenanigans.
strawberry_enjoyer42@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 12h
Yay! I do all of those things!
Except incognito. Incognito (or browser containers I guess?) seem like a really good idea.
Thanks!
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 1d
Tor
strawberry_enjoyer42@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 12h
Fair enough, I guess.
FineCoatMummy@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 1d
IMO, that is true... but could potentially be misleading. It can still be better to block, even if blocking itself is a fingerprint. (edited here, fix bad wording)
It only makes you worse off if the bits of identifying info with javascript exceed the bits obtained by the single option of disabling JS. And that depends on how many ppl do it. It's the -log2 of the probability of that event. Let's say that only 1 in 100,000 disables JS. (It's gotta be more than that?) That is just under 17 bits of information from seeing that JS is disabled, b/c you're only unique to one part in 100K. So if the number of bits obtainable with JS enabled exceed 17, then it's a net win to disable JS!
I don't know what % of ppl disable JS. I feel it's more than 1:100K. That's only 1 person in a decent sized city. IDK what the right % is. But for any reasonable value I can imagine, it seems like a win. Far more bits of ID-ing info can be obtained through JS, than the -log2 of that %.
Also, the more ppl disable JS, the fewer bits are obtained by seeing that JS is disabled, b/c the log2(%-who-disables-JS) gets smaller.
CameronDev@programming.dev · 2 pts · 1d
Noscript has 100k users on chrome, 240k on Firefox, according to their respective stores. I don't know if thats total downloads or active installations though.
Ublock origin lite is 19M on chrome.
There are ~6B global internet users. So definitely more than 1:100k, but still very unique.
So they are very different scales.
kzzzl@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
try librejs
TrollAccount69@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 1d
Just change your definition of safety.
dragospirvu75@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1d
I have three browsers (all Firefox-based): 1) Javascript OFF; 2) LibreJS and JShelter addons; 3) Default. Ans this is the priority when accessing websites.
unitedwithme@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 1d
Waterfox browser, Privacy Badger, Port Authority. Usually private tabs, always-on VPN with Quad9 DNS.
It rarely breaks sites, but occasionally captcha doesn't work. That's a privacy Badger thing that you can disable temporarily or for the site entirely.
Then I test with https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ and might tweak additional WF settings.
I also use Lineage OS, F-Droid only, no Google anything or any big tech. The "biggest" tech company might be Proton. But I like their mail service with custom domain support and SimpleLogin aliases.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1d
l3mming@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 11h
Librewolf - it's firefox but with a bunch of extra privacy, including browser fingerprint resistance.