Panopticlick

>>56570861
`lost in the noise with fake searches and site requests' doesn't really work
stop using the pleebnet is your only option
not like anything of value is here anymore anyway
we're waiting for gnunet to stabilize and become usable
this will truly be what saves us

go outside anon
take drugs and look at trees and learn something about yourself and the world
this is what they truly fear

Why does my browser need to announce which fonts it can use to websites? Preventing that alone will help alleviate fingerprinting.

>>56570981
I do that anon but I spend my other time watching my friends and family fall victim to this crap. Their personalities and belief systems are actually being warped by content filtering and it's scary as fuck. I don't want to live in a world like that and I think there are still ways to fight it.

which consumer electronics device is this thread advertising for? it's not clear to me

File: Slide_in_Parque.jpg (193KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1024x768px

>>56570861

>using furry fox sjw code with shitty add ons instead of just using brave with everything built into the core of the browser made by based brendan eich

kill yourself to be honest family

>>56571699
but what about adblocking?

I could use hosts but they track that too now unfortunately + most advertising sites also serve normal images too in order to prevent IP blocking

Blocking privacy-invading plugins and scripts is a source of tracking itself. You're standing out; against the grain. That in and of itself is a unique identifier.

>>56570861
Am I good if I use Disconnect on my mobile?

>>56571830
lel

File: results.png (132KB, 699x774px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 699x774px

well shit, I have a doppelganger

>>56571727
yes adblocking, script blocking, removal of google botnet, etc. is all built into brave

>>56572536
i just tried to install brave on an rpm based distro and found that they are using architecture identifiers from debian and thus the package manager fails out

if this is indicative of the rest of the project I would warn others to stay far far away

>>56571065
So long as these people value capability, comfort, and convenience, over personal sovereignty, privacy, and freedom, nothing will change.
If reading the relevant pages on gnu.org, stallman.org, and fsf.org isn't enough to get them to change their behavior, I doubt anything ever will be.
We're lucky to have broken free, however we did.

If you want to change the world and system from within, there are four things you have to enact:
All advertising must be banned in public spaces.
All money and profitability must be removed from election cycles and decision making.
All publicly owned machines must run free and only free software.
All things payed for by the public (via grants, subsidies, R&D, etc) must be publicly owned and freely licensed.

If you do these things, which actually might be within the realm of possible, the world will slowly start to normalize into something humane.
Best part about these four things is that you can begin to tackle them on the individual level yourself in your own life.

>>56570861
>there is enough statistical power to identify you as the person behind the browser.
As the same person, but not to idetnify or locate you.
There's a difference.
They then try to identify one of the instances as an individual and can then assume that all the others are also you.

>>56572638
>rpm based distro
found your problem

>>56570861
You don't even need to go full autism to win on the privacy game. Just make you do one of these:

- Don't give the sites any system information
- Make your system look like the most common thing out there.

>>56573769
Nope, they can identify you based on other data you may have provided elsewhere

Mines is unique

>>56574179
we know Evan

>>56574199
No u

>>56574023
Can you do that on a browser that can run user scripts...?

What plugin to spoof fingerprints such as resolution etc to tracking?

>>56574556
Apparently, Random Agent Spoofer for Firefox

I have never gone to any of these sites that check for browser uniqueness because I assume they're all datamining honeypots of some sort.
Am I just being silly, or am I the only smart one here who's not fucked?

>>56574673
> Am I just being silly, or am I the only smart one here who's not fucked?
You are being silly. The internet is one huge data mine.

Panopticlick literally profiles like an advertisement company might. You're not installing plugins for them. They grab what your browser gives them.

Guess what, that shit is already being grabbed and used by a ton of websites. EFF is only trying to show the techniques work, and raise awareness.

Even uMatrix should make it quite obvious how you're constantly feeding 3rd party domains and shit with information.

File: k.png (20KB, 642x715px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 642x715px

>>56574844
>Panopticlick
>block javascript alongside ads

no problem

>>56574906
Or at least make your browser not respond / fake certain JS requests that add so much data that you become completely individually identifiable.

>>56571047
Blame web “dev” cancer

>>56574673
1. The EFF is on your side
2. They have nothing to gain from you because the data they collect and show to you is information that literally every single website has access to.

I'm not sure what kind of advanced tinfoil hattery it would need to be fearful of a service literally designed to help you become more privacy on the internet. But whatever, man

>>56574906
How do you block the CSS-based screen size / color depth tests?

Those always bust me because I am the only person with a 4096x2160x30 display

>>56575287
what you have to do is run windowed in a default size

torbrowser warns you as much ("do not fullscreen")

My window size gave me a unique fingerprint too because stupid shitty tiling.

>>56575287
Random Agent Spoofer here too, I think.

>>56570861
I got the same thing.

Fresh install of Pale Meme on lubuntu

File: Branded-poster.jpg (2MB, 1382x2048px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1382x2048px

>>56573199

if they know about fingerprinting why doesn't someone make standard settings that we can all set them to

>>56575363
Because once you do that, some websites break. Among other things.

And unfortunately most browsers aren't like "privacy is more important, let the people that are too lazy / dumb to use a menu go".

>>56571047
corruption, the NSA has been weakening standards by putting agents into commitees for years.

>>56575308
But am running in windowed mode.

https://browserprint.info/ still detects my full screen resolution somehow

>>56575499
The NSA probably doesn't need this very much, so I kinda doubt it can be just pinned on them.

>>56575240
>>56574844
I'm dumb and didn't read the link and didn't realize it was the EFF.
I'm using Icecat-38.8 with uBlock Origin, uMatrix, HTTPS Everywhere, and Self-Destructing Cookies.
Some of the things it's collecting about me are wrong because these things spoof them, but it still says I'm unique.
What more can I do?

>>56575639
Random Agent Spoofer.

Make sure you check the detailed results. If they think you are unique because of random nonsense your browser reports to every site differently, that's not really something anyone can track.

>>56570861
Try this one: www.ip-check.info
It's far more rigorous.

>>56575658
if uMatrix already does that am I good?

>>56575732
I don't think it spoofs the font list and stuff like that just yet...?

But yea, if it did spoof most things / everything every test in this thread thought of, you should be fairly hard to track by advertisment companies and the like.

They possibly aren't using anything more clever to still track you.

>>56571829
isn't there some spoofing agent plugin that makes you seem like a basic bitch?

although I guess that can be tested for too.

>>56575240
>The EFF is on your side
You shouldn't voluntarily surrender your data to anyone, you moron. Especially to those who say they are your friends.

>>56575825
> although I guess that can be tested for too.
They *could* test for that, but do what? Prohibit being a basic bitch?

Even if you used the same laptop at home and at work, the connection between your activities at home and at work might be completely lost.

Chances involving in stalking you and only you for a perfect profile of who you are and what you do become increasingly bad the more you aren't someone that can be kept apart from the noise of thousands or even millions of other people also doing stuff.

>>56575916
> You shouldn't voluntarily surrender your data to anyone
That is not the point of that test. You obviously do it with all your "defenses" enabled.

They don't get privileged access to you data. EFF gets the same information to work from as any retarded website you visit on the 'net gets. You merely just learn what they learned in this case rather than being secretly profiled by 12 ad companies, 80 foreign governments pulling data also from ad companies, and the website itself.

>>56575947
>>56575972
¿?

>>56575620
it's about attack surface etc. but i agree that some of it is more useful for ad agencies than the NSA

>>56575639
Post a screenshot?

>>56575916
>spectularly missing the point
1. The EFF is not asking for your personal data
2. The EFF is not collecting your personal data

Like I said, they're on your side.

File: panopticlick.png (224KB, 1009x2072px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1009x2072px

>>56576680

>>56576848
>Hash of canvas fingerprint
>Hash of WebGL fingerprint
So get rid of those? Tip: Disable WebGL and canvas, or even better: disable javascript

>>56576946
if I disable scripts the site can't even do its thing