On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Frank Steinmetzger <war...@gmx.de> wrote: > 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).
FWIW, I'm not using NoScript or Flashblock, only an Adblock. And Chrome blocked the Java applet both in the normal and incognito modes. -- :wq
