News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are tracked. Parent comment

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 ]