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

    • hansolo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years 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.

    • bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years 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.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years 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.

      • unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years 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

    • gcheliotis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years 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
        ·
        2 years 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
          ·
          2 years 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
            ·
            2 years 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
              ·
              2 years 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.

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

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

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years 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.

  • WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years 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.

  • Mighty Orbot@retro.pizza
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years 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.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

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

      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…

  • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

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

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years 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.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

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

  • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    And yet the normie still has nothing to hide…

    Adult People accepting these material conditions disgust me.

    But as society we got what we deserve, get fucked by daddy and asking for seconds because convenience and you can’t expect a peasant to have any agency

    • Quadhammer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Not sure why youre being downvoted your not wrong. The peasants need to sack up and help dismantle this shit

      • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        These statements appear to be insulting to them?

        However, clearly politely explaining shit to them doesn’t work so I am just shit posting until I am dead or we hit critical mass of freedom enjoyers which ever one comes first.

  • JackAttack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Great read from Tuta on thia topic. It’s been an issue for a while but Google going full force publicly on it causes this issue to grow greater.

    I left a comment replying to someone further down about how this can be at least a little combatted and how it is with browsers. (At least to my minimal knowledge of it)

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I just wish Tuta put more effort into their product than their marketing.

      I noped out because of them not letting me have any control over my emails outside of asking them for a dump. But reading the support reddit is just brutal.

      • JackAttack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        I personally have never used them. I use Proton myself (despite some news) and haven’t had any issues. I’ve heard Tuta is also great but I think one of the cons of privacy mail is that they’re not going to be nearly as polished as the big players like Gmail or outlook.

  • Balinares@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    You’d THINK the article would link to a source about the fingerprinting in question instead of 90% filler slop and ads for their own service… Anyone got a link?

      • Balinares@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        I’m aware of fingerprinting techniques, thank you. The article is claiming that Google will start using some of those and I’m looking for the source for that claim, hopefully with specifics about which techniques are involved. Confusingly, the article does not appear to provide such a source.

          • Balinares@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            Thanks – that’s an announcement about policy updates. I already read it and it says nothing about fingerprinting. The only change to underlying technologies it mentions is the use of e.g. trusted execution environments (the doc for which, per a further link, is in fact on github). Those seem to claim that they let announcers run ad campaigns through Google ads while keeping their campaign data provably locked away from Google. So, basically, all these links are about purported “privacy-enhancing” techs, and you’d be forgiven for taking that with an enormous grain of salt, but either way, nothing in there about fingerprinting.

            The Guardian article basically paraphrases the Tuta one – or it’s the other way around, maybe – but does also not provide actual sources.

            I just want a source on what fingerprinting Tuta is claiming Google will start using. I feel like the details of the purported fingerprinting techniques should be front and center to this discussion and I’m frustrated that the article entirely fails to provide that info.

            • Sckharshantallas@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              Yeah I also looked into it and there seems no concrete information on that, just speculation about the policy change, like this one:

              “While Google doesn’t explicitly state that IP addresses and other fingerprint methods are now allowed, the Privacy Disclosure section of Google’s February 16th Platforms Program Policies now explicitly mentions ‘cookies, web beacons, IP addresses, or other identifiers.’”

              When you dive into it, it does look more like companies that sell encryption and VPNs using some potential danger to get more subscribers.

    • Steven McTowelie@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Jokes aside, keep in mind that the idea of fingerprinting is that your computer’s configuration is as unique as a fingerprint (e.g., your monitor is x resolution, you are on this operating system, you are using these following extensions in this browser, you have these fonts on your system).

      Setting your user agent to something super unique is basically shining a spotlight on yourself.

      I recommend this user agent switcher extension (firefox)

      • Huschke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        It’s way worse than that.

        Even if you somehow magically have the same settings as everyone else, you’re mouse movement will still be unique.

        You can even render something on a canvas out of view and depending on your GPU, your graphics driver, etc the text will look different…

        There is no real way to escape fingerprinting.

        • Steven McTowelie@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          I have a novice coding question using the mouse tracking as an example: Is it possible to intercept and replace mouse tracking data with generic inputs? For example, could you implement an overlay that blocks mouse interactions, and instead of physically clicking on elements, send a direct packet to the application to simulate selecting those elements?

          • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            Yes, it’s possible. That’s the way a lot of automated web UI testing tools work. The problem with doing it during normal browser use is that your intentional actions with the real mouse wouldn’t work right, or the page would start acting like you clicked on things you didn’t click on.

    • shortrounddev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Fingerprinting unfortunately uses more than useragent strings. It takes hashes of data in your browser from a javascript context that is not easily masked or removed. For example, it might render a gradient of colors projected onto a curved 3d plane. The specific result of this will create a unique hash for your GPU. They can also approximate your geolocation by abusing the time-to-live information within a TCP packet, which is something you can’t control on the clientside at all. If you TRULY want to avoid tracking by google, you need to block google domains in your hosts file and maybe consider disabling javascript on all sites by default until you trust them. Also don’t use google.

      • JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        How must it feel being clever enough to come up with these ideas and then implement them for companies invading everyones privacy for advertisement revenue and malicious information serving or stealing.
        I guess they sleep soundly on a fat bank account.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Yeah, I have an anti fingerprint extension installed in Firefox, and immediately no Google site will work anymore, all google sessions break with it while most other sites just continue to work.

    I’m working to rid myself completely from Google, my target being that I will completely DNS block all google (and Microsoft and Facebook) domains within a year or so. Wish I could do it faster but I only have a few hours per weekend for this

      • Steven McTowelie@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Hi, here are the extensions I use in FireFox/Librewolf (all will work in Chromium too, but I don’t recommend Chromium browsers):

        Privacy and Security-focused

        uBlock Origin: A lightweight and efficient wide-spectrum content blocker.

        Decentraleyes: Protects you from tracking through free, centralized content delivery. (not recommended alongside uBlock Origin; see the reply below)

        CanvasBlocker: Protects your privacy by preventing websites from fingerprinting you using the Canvas API.

        Ghostery Tracker & Ad Blocker - Privacy AdBlock: Blocks trackers and ads to protect your privacy and speed up browsing. Also has a handy feature that automatically rejects cookies for you. (not recommended alongside uBlock Origin; see the reply below. You can disable the ad blocking functionality and keep the cookie rejection function).

        KeePassXC-Browser: Integrates KeePassXC password manager with your browser.

        NoScript: Blocks JavaScript, Flash, and other executable content to protect against XSS and other web-based attacks (note: you will be required to manually activate javascript on each web page that you visit, but this is a good practice that you should get used to).

        Privacy Badger: Automatically learns to block trackers based on their behavior. (not recommended alongside uBlock Origin; see the reply below)

        User-Agent Switcher and Manager: Allows you to spoof your browser’s user-agent string (avoid creating a unique configuration; opt for something common, such as Chrome on Windows 10).

        Violentmonkey: A user script manager for running custom scripts on websites (allows you to execute your own JavaScript code, usually to modify how a website behaves or block behavior that you don’t like. VERY useful. Check out greasyfork for UserScripts).

        Other useful extensions (non-privacy/security)

        Firefox Translations: Provides on-demand translation of web pages directly within Firefox.

        Flagfox: Displays a flag depicting the location of the current website’s server.

        xBrowserSync: Syncs your browser data (bookmarks, passwords, etc.) across devices with end-to-end encryption.

        Plasma Integration: Integrates Firefox with the KDE Plasma desktop environment (for linux users).

        • helloyanis@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          Thanks for the list! Although most of the time it’s advised to not use multiple adblocker in tandem, because they might conflict with each other and get detected by the website. For example, uBlock origin has, in its settings, an option to disable JavaScript and in the filter list, an option to block cookie banners “Cookie notices”. But if all of these work for you that’s great!

        • kalpol@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          Port Authority is a good one too, I think. Need to check that it is still maintained.

        • aceshigh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          How do these extensions work with ubo?

          On a different note. Your name used to be my nickname lol thanks for that memory.

          • Steven McTowelie@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            They work well on desktop and mobile (firefox). As the other replier stated, you may want to avoid using multiple ad blockers (decentraleyes, privacy badger, and ghostery) alongside UBlock; and NoScript’s functionality can be achieved with UBlock.

            Lol the name came from a ironscape clan member from my osrs days. I don’t suppose that’s you?

  • RejZoR@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Good thing I erased Google out of my life a decade ago meaning I can much easier block even more of their everywhere present garbage and not have issues.