Hacker News Reader

Comment by nwah1 | Hacker News Reader

It is ironic that every new preference meant to enhance privacy only adds more bits of information by which to fingerprint you.

But maybe fingerprinting is unavoidable. As far as I understand, to avoid fingerprinting, you would need to not have any browser cache at all.

View on HN

Yeah, strange that they don't focus on the legalities of the already existing dnt header, and instead added a new "Sec-GPC" header. https://globalprivacycontrol.github.io/gpc-spec/#the-sec-gpc...

If DNT is a setting and respected by the website, how is this fingerprinting? My understanding is fingerprinting you need multiple metrics to compare to ensure someone is unique and thus you couldn't fingerprint purely based on a single setting (DNT) alone. (Obviously if it is not respected it becomes one more metric to add to enable better fingerprinting)

Check out EFF's Panopticlick demo. You basically answered your own question in your final parenthetical.

But part of this article is about giving DNT some teeth. The parenthetical statement was to show I understand that without the legal teeth it is another metric. But by ignoring the legal part you're ignoring the entire point of the post and my comment.

It's far from just the browser cache. Consider things like network location, download speed, interaction path, browser parsing edge cases, script enabled, privacy add-ons enabled, etc...

At last we see the end of the funnel. Both sides of an argument push 'progress' for a desired result.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com