Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are tracked

Re:Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are... by dheera on Friday February 26, 2021 @01:58PM (#26278386)

Why would incognito mode be any more detectable? If it's a question of not giving access to certain data that could be used for fingerprinting (e.g. user agent, screen resolution, storage API, statistics of accelerometer noise, gyroscope drift rate), the browser should respond with fake data instead of no data.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are... by danudey on Friday February 26, 2021 @02:53PM (#26279102)

There's a lot of data that doesn't need to be present, or presented, without user approval. The info at https://browserleaks.com/ is just... ridiculously detailed.

I don't see why a website should be able to get information about my WebGL capabilities without me being asked first if I want to let them display content, or why they can get a list of audio and video input devices without asking to use them first.

Even on Firefox, which I think is generally doing a much better job about this stuff, there's so amazingly much data that shouldn't be shared without asking first.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are... by dheera on Friday February 26, 2021 @03:20PM (#26279420)

> why they can get a list of audio and video input devices without asking to use them first

I don't think they can do this without audio/video permissions (?)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are... by gcbirzan on Friday February 26, 2021 @04:05PM (#26279838)

The problem is that you cannot just add a new permission and expect things to not break. The flow for requesting permissions is different and would break pretty much every website that uses these APIs.

[ Parent | on HN ]