• mle@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    So I thought this is never going to fly under GDPR. Then the article goes on to say:

    Many privacy laws, including the EU’s GDPR and California’s CCPA, require user consent for tracking. However, because fingerprinting works without explicit storage of user data on a device, companies may argue that existing laws do not apply which creates a legal gray area that benefits advertisers over consumers.

    Oh come on Google, seriously? I remember a time when Google were the good guys, can’t believe how they’ve changed…

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        It’s still sad to see the development. We’re allowed to mourn things that happened long ago, you know.

      • mle@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        Oh absolutely. At this point I’m not surprised anymore that they turned to shit, it’s more like I think they’ve hit rock bottom already but they manage to surprise me with new ways to dig their hole even deeper.

    • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      Google were maybe seen as the good guys back in the days of Yahoo search, and perhaps the very early days of Android.

      But those times are so long passed. Google has been a tax-avoiding, anti-consumer rights, search-rigging, anti-privacy behemoth for decades now, and they only get worse with each passing year.

      • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        for decades now

        You should drop that S. The company has only existed for a little over 2 decades and Android hasn’t been around for much more than 1. Yes they’ve become an evil fucking corporation but let’s not exaggerate for how long.

        • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          I’ve been using Google since 1998, and everyone loved them because their search indexed sites quicker than others and the search results were more useful than the competition at the time like Yahoo and Altavista and AskJeeves. They started turning nasty as soon as they gained steam & commercial success with AdWords… around 2003-2004. So no, while they get worae each year they haven’t been ‘the good guys’ for decades.

          • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 days ago

            You’re mad cause they started putting ads into your search results? Like that was always going to happen. Having ads doesn’t make them evil. The shit they’re doing right now, and have been doing for the last half a dozen years or so, that makes them evil.

  • WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    I don’t bother. I know they know everything about me already, and that I’m not an important person. As such, I wonder why it matters.

      • _cryptagion [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        I just don’t use any sites like that. If a site is using something other than Turnstile from Cloudflare, then I refuse to use it. I haven’t really experienced any inconvenience myself with this policy, but obviously I don’t depend on any sites that require recaptcha.

        But you can allow/block any elements per site, or globally, which makes it trivial to block all unwanted scripts except on specific sites. So there is nothing preventing you from only exposing yourself to Google on the few sites you use that need those scripts.

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Considering how few people block all scripts, this could also make it trivial for them to fingerprint you.

    • hansolo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      Ooooh, no they won’t stop this. It’s the workaround for tracking with all the things you just mentioned.

      You have to either mask the fingerprint like how Brave does, or spoof the headers and block JS to make the fingerprint useless.

  • Mighty Orbot@retro.pizza
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    @misk I think your federation software is broken. In Mastodon, the urls in your posts just lead back to themselves every time, not out to an external article.

      • Mighty Orbot@retro.pizza
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        @OpenStars That was my point. I can open the post on its own server and see it as intended. But the federation part of the Lemmy (?) software is clearly not generating the right data.

        • OpenStars@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

          @mighty_orbot@retro.pizza

          What I mean is, the link in a Lemmy community when viewed from a Lemmy instance works just fine. So it’s not broken at that level.

          I can’t speak to how it comes across to Mastodon, or your particular method of access to that, as you showed in your screenshot. In general, instances running the Mbin software seem to work better to access both Lemmy and Mastodon, but overall communication between Mastodon and Lemmy seems not perfect, as you said.

  • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    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.

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        I know right. I was offered a job at a betting site and online casino with those addictive games and shit. Gave that a hard pass, said no thanks, don’t think that’s the right business area for me. I would feel so dirty going to and coming from work every damn day.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        I do it as a security measure for private institutions and everyone involved has signed contracts. It’s not on the public web.

    • hansolo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      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.

    • gcheliotis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      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.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        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.

        • gcheliotis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          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 🤔

          • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 days ago

            Yes, and even before js fingerprint happens the connection is fingerprinted through HTTP and TLS protocol fingerprints as each system is slightly different like supporting different encryption ciphers, different http engine and how requests are performed etc.

            So even before you see the page itself the server has a pretty good understanding of your client which determines whether you see this captcha box at all. That’s why on public wifi and rare operating systems (like linux) and web browsers you almost always get these captcha verifications.

            The more complex the web becomes the easier it is to gather this data and currently the web is very complex with no sight of stopping.

            • gcheliotis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 days ago

              Huh had no idea. I still wonder how accurate this is though, like whether it can be used forensically as the word “fingerprint” suggests to identify a specific person/private machine. It’s kind of fascinating as a topic. I would think that given that most people use similar setups, similar hardware and software, similar routers and settings, it would be impossible, but perhaps with enough details of a particular setup, a specific machine and user can be identified with decent accuracy.

    • bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      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.

      • unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        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

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        Yeah unfortunately disabling JS is not viable option tho onion websites are perfectly functional without JS and it just shows how unnecessarily JS had been expanded without regard for safety but theres no stopping the web.

  • 9point6@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    Further evidence that a Republican government in the USA results in private organisations pushing the bar as far as they can.

    In Reagan’s time it was Wall Street. Now it’s Silicon Valley.

    You want private organisations working for your benefit and not that of their shareholders? You need a government that actually has the gumption to challenge them. The current US government is 4 years of a surrender flag flying on the white house.

    Or we could bin off this fucking failed neoliberal experiment, but that’s apparently a bit controversial for far too many people

    • One_Blue_Shoe@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      Having the gall to suggest we not allow less than 3000 people to own all of the worlds supply lines, media platforms, institutional wealth, construction companies, dissemination platforms, politicians, private equity firms and the single largest interconnected (private or otherwise) espionage and social engineering plot known to mankind?

      You fucking tanky you! Go back to Russia!!!

  • LeTak@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    Using Mullvad Browser + Mullvad VPN could mitigate this a little bit. Because if you use it as intended (don’t modify Mullvad browser after installation) , all Mullvad users would have the same browser fingerprint and IPs from the same pool.

      • Eyedust@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        Mullvad, (the vpn, I have not tried the browser) uses a single account number as both name and password, no emails. It allows for multiple anonymous payment methods and it’s open source.

        Sliiiiightly more trustworthy than Google imo.

        • Deway@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

          The random dude on the corner is more trustworthy than Google, it’s not that hard to be sadly.

      • pound_heap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        And Mullvad is not in business if selling user profiles to advertisers, at least as far as we know

      • TomasEkeli@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        If you don’t trust anyone the internet (or any net you don’t fully control yourself) is not something you will use.

        Practical security is a matter of threat-modeling and calculated risks.

        Mullvad has a good track record, but if you know of better alternatives that don’t require building it yourself, please share!

    • hansolo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      The problem is it’s all or nothing. You must foil IP address, fingerprint, and cookies - all three at once.

      Mullvad browser might make your fingerprint look similar to other users, but it’s not common is the problem. Test it with the EFF Cover your tracks site.

  • Ledericas@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    its captcha v3, its the same thing reddit uses to catch bots and ban evaders, apparently its expensive for reddit so they only mostly use it for ban waves.

  • Snowstorm@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    I know nothing, but isn’t some pieces of Google software to be found on many sites that aren’t Google or YouTube?

  • Waldschrat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    It would be nice to hammer a manually created fingerprint into the browser and share that fingerprint around. When everyone has the same fingerprint, no one can be uniquely identified. Could we make such a thing possible?

    • Not really. The “fingerprint” is not one thing, it’s many, e.g. what fonts are installed, what extensions are used, screen size, results of drawing on a canvas, etc… Most of this stuff is also in some way related to the regular operation of a website, so many of these can’t be blocked.

      You could maybe spoof all these things, but some websites may stop behaving correctly.

      • Waldschrat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        I get that some things like screen resolution and basic stuff is needed, however most websites don’t need to know how many ram I have, or which CPU I use and so on. I would wish for an opt-in on this topics: So only make the bare minimum available and ask the user, when more is needed. For example playing games in the browser, for that case it could be useful to know how much ram is available, however for most other things it is not.

      • OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        No it isn’t.

        And this is really important. If you go on Google tracked websites without tor, Google will still know it’s you when you use tor, even if you’ve cleared all your cookies.

        Tor means people don’t know your IP address. It doesn’t protect against other channels of privacy attack.

          • brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 days ago

            It’s been a long while since I looked, but I remember it being a thing in tails to specifically not resize your browser window or only have it full screen to match a ton of other fingerprints.

            Plus since it was a live distro that reset on every reboot it would only have the same fonts and other data as other people using tails. Honestly, I hate that all that info is even available to browsers and web sites at all.

              • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 days ago

                I don’t quite understand – does this feature let you resize the window again to the size you want, and you are still sharing the same fingerprint with everyone else? Or do you still have to keep the browser window the default size to minimize your unique fingerprint?

                • Forbo@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  It rounds the browser window to the nearest 100x100 window size. Using the default will likely be the biggest dataset to hide yourself in, but maximizing the window will still have some amount of obfuscation.

            • Canuck@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 days ago

              Good point, that difference does matter. I guess other browsers like Brave use the Tor Network, and it would be misleading to suggest Brave has good anti-fingerprinting.

              What kind of fingerprint avoidance are you suggesting then that the Tor browser cannot do that makes a difference?

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 days ago

                If you enable JavaScript, you open Pandora’s box to fingerprinting (e.g. tracking mouse movements, certain hardware details, etc). If you don’t, half (or more) of the internet is unusable.

  • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    So, manifest v3 was all about preventing Google’s competitors from tracking you so that Google could forge ahead.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      The fewer of your competitors who have the data the more valuable that data is.

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      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.