News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought by zamnos on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @06:33AM (#35244482)
Except that disabling JavaScript is an anomaly all on its own. The dozens of users running without JavaScript might not be individually fingerprint able but it's still a small enough cohort that I don't know how much I'd lean on that. Figure in the user agent string and it's probably unique enough a subgroup to sell ads to.
Re:Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought by giancarlostoro on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @06:45AM (#35244537)
> Figure in the user agent string and it's probably unique enough a subgroup to sell ads to.

But if you never see ads how do you sell ads to them and how do you meaningfully discover enough about the person to feed them valuable ads?

Re:Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought by zagrebian on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @06:49AM (#35244567)
> it's probably unique enough a subgroup to sell ads to

I have been browsing with JavaScript disabled by default for the past 6 months. Based on my experience, no-JavaScript ads are rarer than four-leaf clover.

Re:Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought by Throwaway62884 on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @07:12AM (#35244703)
More common than you think

https://amiunique.org/fpnojs

Re:Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought by nerdponx on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @08:02AM (#35245051)
Probably not a representative sample though.
Re:Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought by bawolff on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @08:33AM (#35245299)
Also that cuts down the group so much, i imagine other things that are usually too coarse grained to be useful suddenly become much more useful. E.g. geoip location or accept-language headers.
Re:Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought by GoblinSlayer on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @12:18PM (#35248339)
But ads don't work without javascript.