Firefox adding more aggressive anti-fingerprinting protection with version 67

[Bananasplit_00]

This is great, Mozilla are killing it in the privacy game Switched on my main computer, half way switched on my laptop and havent switched on my phone yet. Same applies for my switch over to duckduckgo too. Only reason i havent gone all the way is because i cant be bothered to move all my tabs

[Hellion]

Although Firefox isn't perfect because it's still set up by default to use google servers for things like safe lists, you at least have the option to remove or edit this under the hood in the configuration settings unlike other browsers. I'm also not sure how long this new anti-fingerprinting function will be effective for. It's a constant arms race with website admins on who can one up each other. That's why community maintained privacy extensions have already existed for years.

 

At least Mozilla is trying and has it's priorities in order unlike chrome that logs everything you do while google pedals marketing bullshit that it "cares about your privacy" when you use any of it's "services".

 

 

 

 

 

On 3/7/2019 at 12:52 PM, kuhnertdm said:

Web pages require that information to load properly. It has a real use. That's why the simple solution of "Just give it completely random numbers" doesn't work.

Tracking scripts are not required for page loading or functionality.

 

These can be selectively blocked while still loading the essential pages that actually form the website.

[kuhnertdm]

44 minutes ago, Hellion said:

Tracking scripts are not required for page loading or functionality.

 

These can be selectively blocked while still loading the essential pages that actually form the website.

This isn't a script blocker. This is changing the dimensions of the page, which is read by tracking scripts.

[Hellion]

On Friday, March 08, 2019 at 5:03 PM, kuhnertdm said:

This isn't a script blocker. This is changing the dimensions of the page, which is read by tracking scripts.

I'm aware of that. The point I'm making is that the tracking scripts which this is being implemented to avoid do not need to be loaded which invalidates your bullshit claim that websites "need" this information to function correctly.

[RejZoR]

Is screen size really that important to track someone? I mean, like 80% of ppl have 1080p screens. Doesn't seem like high value tracking method when majority of users are detected the same.

[thorhammerz]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Is screen size really that important to track someone? I mean, like 80% of ppl have 1080p screens. Doesn't seem like high value tracking method when majority of users are detected the same.

When combined with other browser parameters (font size, font type, java script enabled, cookies enabled/disabled/no-third-party, cache/history, etc), the combined data can build a pretty solid picture of what device (and by extension/extrapolation, the person behind it) is attached to fingerprint.

 

The fingerprints are going to be stored on third party databases (by the ones doing the fingerprinting) that anyone willing to fork over a bit of cash can access, to track devices across multiple sites, knowing who you are based on not only that particular website's fingerprinting, but also the fingerprinting done by other unrelated websites as well, all without ever storing any cookies/settings files on your local PC.