On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:34:56AM -0500, Michael Mol wrote: > >>> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/ > >> > >> My results from work: > >> > >> Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,939,102 tested > >> so far. > >> > >> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that > >> conveys at least 20.89 bits of identifying information. > >> > > > > > > Funny, I get exactly the same thing except add one to the large number. > > I guess you tested before I did. How does one avoid this but still > > have sites work? > > Well, I just went to the same site using a Chrome 'incognito' browser, > and got this: > > Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 969,560 > browsers have the same fingerprint as yours. > > Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that > conveys 19.89 bits of identifying information.
I get almost the same numbers with just using NoScript and Flashblock. (And the above result when I allow the Java applet and JavaScript). This backs me up in using noscript and flashblock. Sometimes I doubt myself when I get asked once more why I would use NoScript in times when most of the web relies on JS. I then say that privacy and comfort is more important to me than having to allow JS on a site from time to time. (Even though some sites obviously don't work without it, such as video portals, most of them still do, albeit some gt a borked layout from it). -- Gruß | Greetings | Qapla' I forbid any use of my email addresses with Facebook services. The power of water is so great, that even the strongest man cannot hold it.
pgpB9TJj2ZpI7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
