On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 16:04:45 Frank Steinmetzger 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).
I get better results with Opera (with everything other than Cookies enabled): only one in 215,475 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours. Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 17.72 bits of identifying information. -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
