For everyone wondering: Firefox extension Chameleon randomly spoofs your user agent. However, I would highly recommend NOT using this extension, or randomizing your user agent whatsoever - it only raises your entropy and makes you easier to track. You should be trying to make your browser look identical to everyone else's, not different.

This can by partially achieved by setting privacy.resistFingerprinting to true in Firefox's about:config. This won't stop Panopticlick from fingerprinting you. If you really want to reduce your fingerprint, try using the ghacks user.js [1]. If you want to make fingerprinting completely impossible, use the TOR browser [2].

Most users don't need to worry about this - uBlock origin blacklists most fingerprinting efforts by default.

Please read: https://www.privacytools.io/browsers/#fingerprint

[1] https://github.com/ghacksuserjs/ghacks-user.js [2] https://www.torproject.org/

More Firefox privacy extensions: https://github.com/ghacksuserjs/ghacks-user.js/wiki/4.1-Exte...

You're assuming that trackers account for a changing UA. Are there trackers doing that? I suppose a deliberate or malicious attempt to identify me and isolate my machine could account for a randomly spoofed UA. But if I am trying to hide in plain sight from tracking software, isn't this method of UA spoofing enough to misplace my machine into different tracking categories or throw them off my scent entirely? When I run Panopticlick, UA is usually among the highest number of bits of identifying information, the rest of the identifying settings and preferences are more likely to be shared, which makes a particular device blend in.

If you don't mind, how are you randomizing these metrics?

Not sure what the other poster is using, but you could try https://add0n.com/useragent-switcher.html?version=0.3.2&type...

or https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/random_user_a...

If you're primarily worried about privacy, I recommend against spoofing your user agent unless you're only changing superficial details. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1404608

It's very hard to fake an OS or pretend to be a separate browser. If you're focusing on disinformation, you should probably be focusing on disinformation that's harder to detect.

the useragent is far from being the only metric used by panopticlick

I know that, but the UA does provide the highest number of bits of identifying information.

is that still true since operating systems and browsers automatically update themselves now?

Fair point, that probably lowers the odds of recognition a bit, but the UA stands out because of the multiple variables that it reports in one header. At least when I ran Panopticlick a few times with various configurations, that was always the factor which gave up the most bits of identifying info.

Please tell me that there is an extension with which you randomize this data? I want it as well!

that'd be nice but I don't think that there is one so I don't think that he is doing what he is claiming.