So I guess for Firefox users it’s time to enable the resist fingerprinting option ? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/resist-fingerprinting
You can also use canvas blocker add-on.
Use their containers (firefox multi-account container add-on) feature and make a google container so that all google domains go to that container.
If you want to get crazy, in either set in about:config or make yourself a user.is file in your Firefox profile directory and eliminate all communication with google. And some other privacy tweaks below.
google shit and some extra privacy/security settings
Google domains and services:
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.allowOverride”, false);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.blockedURIs.enabled”, false);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.downloads.enabled”, false);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.downloads.remote.block_dangerous”, false);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.downloads.remote.block_dangerous_host”, false);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.downloads.remote.block_potentially_unwanted”, false):
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.downloads.remote.block_uncommon”, false);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.downloads.remote.enabled”, false);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.downloads.remote.url”, “”);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.malware.enabled”, false);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.phishing.enabled”, false);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.provider.google.advisoryName”, “”);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.provider.google.advisoryURL”, “”);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.provider.google.gethashURL”, “”);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.provider.google.lists”, “”);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.provider.google.reportURL”, “”);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.provider.google.updateURL”, “”);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.provider.google4.advisoryName”, “”);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.provider.google4.advisoryURL”, “”);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.provider.google4.dataSharingURL”, “”);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.provider.google4.gethashURL”, “”);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.provider.google4.lists”, “”);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.provider.google4.pver”, “”);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.provider.google4.reportURL”, “”);
user_pref(“browser.safebrowsing.provider.google4.updateURL”, “”);
Privacy and security stuff:
user_pref(“dom.push.enabled”, false);
user_pref(“dom.push.connection.enabled”, false);
user_pref(“layout.css.visited_links_enabled”, false);
user_pref(“media.navigator.enabled”, false);
user_pref(“network.proxy.allow_bypass”, false);
user_pref(“network.proxy.failover_direct”, false);
user_pref(“network.http.referer.spoofSource”, true);
user_pref(“security.ssl.disable_session_identifiers”, true);
user_pref(“security.ssl.enable_false_start”, false);
user_pref(“security.ssl.treat_unsafe_negotiation_as_broken”, true);
user_pref(“security.tls.enable_0rtt_data”, false);
user_pref(“privacy.partition.network_state.connection_with_proxy”, true);
user_pref(“privacy.resistFingerprinting”, true);
user_pref(“privacy.resistFingerprinting.block_mozAddonManager”, true);
user_pref(“privacy.resistFingerprinting.letterboxing”, true);
user_pref(“privacy.resistFingerprinting.randomization.daily_reset.enabled”, true);
user_pref(“privacy.resistFingerprinting.randomization.enabled”, true);
user_pref(“screenshots.browser.component.enabled”, false);
user_pref(“privacy.spoof_english”, 2);
user_pref(“webgl.enable-debug-renderer-info”, false); user_pref(“webgl.enable-renderer-query”, false);
This is why I like Lemmy, never knew canvas blocker was a thing. Thank you.
Or you just switch to LibreWolf where all these settings are already set. It even comes with uBlock preinstalled.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around fingerprinting, so excuse my ignorance. Doesn’t an installed plugin such as Canvas Blocker make you more uniquely identifiable? My reasoning is that very few people have this plugin relatively speaking.
Iirc, Websites can’t query addons unless those addons manipulate the DOM in a way that exposes themselves.
They can query extensions.
Addons are things installed inside the browser. Like uBlock, HTTPS Everywhere, Firefox Containerr, etc.
Extensions are installed outside the browser. Such as Flashplayer, the Gnome extensions installer, etc.
I use (and love) Firefox containers, and I keep all Google domains in one container. However, I never know what to do about other websites that use Google sign in.
If I’m signing into XYZ website and it uses my Google account to sign in, should I put that website in the Google container? That’s what I’ve been doing, but I don’t know the right answer.
Yes, that’s right. Also seriously consider ditching Single StalkSign On entirely.
Why does it do this?
- Math operations in JavaScript may report slightly different values than regular.
PS grateful for this option!
Some math functions have slightly different results depending on architecture and OS, so they fuzz the results a little. Here’s a tor issue discussing the problem: https://gitlab.torproject.org/legacy/trac/-/issues/13018
But one question I’ve been asking myself is : then, wouldn’t I be fingerprinted as one of the few nerds who activated the resist fingerprinting option?
I’ve used this. The only annoyance is that all the on-screen timestamps remain in UTC because JS has no idea what timesone you’re in.
I get that TZ provides a piece of the fingerprint puzzle, but damn it feels excessive.
And automatic darkmode isn’t respected, and a lot of other little annoyances. That’s why this is so difficult. These are all incredibly useful features we would have to sacrifice for privacy.
Dark mode can be recreated using extensions, although the colors most likely won’t be as legible as “native support”.
I don’t see why a similar extrnsion couldn’t change the timezones of clocks.
Additionally, I don’t see why the server should bother with either (pragmatically) - Dark mode is just a CSS switch and timezones could be flagged to be “localized” by the browser. No need for extra bandwidth or computing power on the server end, and the overhead would be very low (a few more lines of CSS sent).
Of course, I know why they bother - Ad networks do a lot more than “just” show ads, and most websites also like to gobble any data they can.
I mean it doesn’t hurt but as far as I can tell, it doesn’t actually block fingerprinting, it blocks domains known to collect and track your activity. The entire web is run on Google domains so that would be nearly impossible to block.
The crazy part about fingerprinting is that if you block the fingerprint data, they use that block to fingerprint you. That’s why the main strategy is to “blend in”.
The crazy part about fingerprinting is that if you block the fingerprint data, they use that block to fingerprint you. That’s why the main strategy is to “blend in”.
So, essentially the best way to actually resist fingerprinting would be to spoof the results to look more common - for example when I checked amiunique.org one of the most unique elements was my font list. But for 99% of sites you could spoof a font list that has the most common fonts (which you have) and no others and that would make you “blend in” without harming functionality. Barring a handful of specific sites that rely on having a special font, that might need to be set as exceptions.
No, the best way is to randomly vary fingerprinting data, which is exactly what some browsers do.
Font list is just one of a hundred different identifying data points so just changing that alone won’t do much.
It’s a nice feature for those that actively enable it and know that it’s enabled, but not for the average user. Most people never change the default settings. Firefox breaking stuff by default would only decrease their market share even further. And this breaks so much stuff. Weird stuff. The average user wants a browser that “just works” and would simply just switch back to Chrome if their favourite website didn’t work as expected after installing Firefox. Chrome can be used by people who don’t even know what a browser is.
So, manifest v3 was all about preventing Google’s competitors from tracking you so that Google could forge ahead.
It was never about privacy, it was supposedly about security, which there is some evidence for. There were a lot of malicious extensions. The sensible thing to do would be to crack down on malicious extensions but I guess that costs too much money and this method also conveniently partially breaks adblockers.
This has been the case for years. I develop fingerprinting services so AMA but it’s basically a long lost battle and browser are beyond the point of saving without a major resolution taking place.
The only way to resist effective fingerprint is to disable Javascript in its entirity and use a shared connection pool like wireguard VPN or TOR. Period. Nothing else works.
Wouldn’t selective disabling of JavaScript make fingerprinting easier? Your block and white list are likely to be unique.
Disabling JavaScript entirely is another data point for fingerprinting. Only a tiny fraction of users do it.
Besides, without JavaScript most websites are not functional anymore. Those that are are likely not tracking you much in the first place.
I disable JS with noscript.net and it really is an enormous pain. It has some security advantages, like I don’t get ambushed so easily by an unfamiliar site and pop ups. I often will just skip a site if it seems too needy
This is what I’ve been saying for months in the reddit privacy sub and to people IRL. Some people seem perfectly happy to just block ads so they don’t see the tracking. Literal ignorance is bliss. Most simply don’t have time or wherewithal to do the minimal work it takes to enjoy relative “privacy” online.
FWIW, any VPN where you can switch locations should do the job since the exit node IPs ought to get re-used. My practice is to give BigG a vanilla treat because my spouse hasn’t DeGoogled, and leave anything attached to our real names with location A. Then a whole second non-IRL-name set of accounts usually with location B with NoScript and Chameleon. Then anything else locations C, D, E, etc.
Ugh… This all sucks.
So… how effective is it? The fingerprinting. I’m guessing there are studies? Also don’t know whether there’s been legal precedent, ie whether fingerprinting has been recognized as valid means of user identification in a court case.
It’s super effective but there are very few real use cases for it outside of security and ad tracking. For example you can’t replace cookies with it because while good fingerprint is unique it can still be fragile (browser update etc.) which would cause data loss and require reauth.
Usually fingerprint plays a supporting role for example when you do those “click here” captchas that’s actually just giving the browser time to fingerprint you and evaluate your trust to decide whether to give you a full captcha or let you through. So fingerprint is always there in tbe background these days tho mostly for security and ad tracking.
As for court cases and things like GDPR - the officials are still sleeping on this and obviously nobody wants to talk about it because it’s super complex and really effective and effects soo many systems that are not ad tech.
Usually fingerprint plays a supporting role for example when you do those “click here” captchas that’s actually just giving the browser time to fingerprint you and evaluate your trust to decide whether to give you a full captcha or let you through. So fingerprint is always there in tbe background these days tho mostly for security and ad tracking.
I’ve been wondering about those “click here” captchas and their purpose 🤔
Would it be possible for a browser or extension to just provide false metadata in order to subvert this type of fingerprinting?
So from what I understand, theres 2 common ways that browsers combat this. Someone add to or correct me if I’m wrong.
- Browsers such as Mull combat this by looking the same as every other browser. If you all look the same, it’s hard to tell you apart. I believe this is why people recommend using default window size when using Tor.
Ex: Everyone wearing black pants and hoodies with the facemasks. Extremely hard to tell who is who.
- Browsers such as Brave randomize metadata that fingerprinting collects so that it’s more difficult to piece it all together and build a trend/profile on someone.
Ex: look like a dog in one place, a cat in another place. They get data for a dog but that doesn’t help build anything if the rest of the data is a cat, hamster, whatever. No way to piece it together to be useful.
In both my examples, there are caveats. Just because everyone dressed the same doesn’t mean someone isn’t taller or shorter, or skinnier or fatter. There can still be tells to help narrow down. Or a cat that barks like a dog suddenly is more linkable to a dog if that makes sense lol.
In other words it still depends user behavior that can contribute to the effectiveness of these tools.
EDIT: got distracted. To answer your question I don’t think so. I think it’s more about user behavior blending in or being randomized. I think the only thing an extension would be able to do is possibly randomize the data but I’m unsure of such an extension yet. These aren’t the only options, these are just ones I’ve read about recently. Online behavior, browswr window size, and I’m sure so much more also goes into it. But every little bit helps and is better than nothing.
EDIT2: Added examples for each for clarity.
For mobile, yes, development stopped.
However, Mullvad (from the actual VPN folk) for desktop still exists.
The first point is flawed and even TOR doesn’t execute javascript because it’s impossible to catch everything when you give the server full code running capabilities.
The second point is more plausible but there’s an incredible amount of work to do to fix this. Like, needing to rework browser engines from ground up and removing all of the legacy cruft. Brave is not capable of this and never will be no matter what they advertise because it doesn’t have it’s own engine.
That being said, these tools will get you quite far against commercial fingerprint products especially ones used for Ads but that will also ruin your browser experience as now you’re just solving captchas everywhere 🫠
No. Anything that executes Javascript will be fingerprinted.
That being said it depends who are you fighting. For common commercial tools like Cloudflare fingerprinter it might work to some extent but if you want to safeguard against more sophisticated fingerprinting then TOR and no JS is the only way to combat this.
The issue is that browsers are so incredibly complex that it’s impossible to patch everything and you’ll just end up getting infinite captchas and break your browsing experience.
Just in time for their prophet, Curtis Yarvin, to be pushing a full-scale surveillance state!
Googlers aren’t on our side. They want to rule. They think being a fucking admin on a server makes them cut out to run society.
They want to tear down democracy and basically replace it with administrator rules and access control lists.
Googlers aren’t on our side
They never were, out interests just aligned while they were growing market share. They have that now, so there’s no more reason to stay aligned.
Corporations aren’t your friend, but they can be momentary allies. People should’ve bailed once IE was dethroned, but here we are…
