On Tue, 01 Oct 2013, Joe Btfsplk wrote: > On 10/1/2013 12:48 AM, Andreas Krey wrote: > >On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 21:08:58 +0000, Joe Btfsplk wrote: > >... > >>No cookies are set, so that doesn't affect outcome. In fact, the "bits > >>of identifying information" shown in results chart largely remain > >>identical (except screen size sometimes changes), but their estimate of > >>"One in X browsers have the same fingerprint as yours," keeps going > >>down dramatically - each time I re run the test. > >How do you expect them to identify repeat visitors as opposed to > >counting them as separate incarnations, thus lowering the uniqueness? > > > Not sure I understand the question in this context. Without > cookies, I don't expect them to identify repeat visitors. I read > their full paper on how they use the data collected > https://panopticlick.eff.org/browser-uniqueness.pdf > > Me visiting 2 - 4 more times, or even the other site visitors - *in > the same 2 - 4 min. span*, wouldn't (actually) affect the statistics > & lower their reported uniqueness estimate by factors of 2, 3 or > more. > > Repeating the test 4 times, almost immediately (clearing cache > between), out of an existing data base of millions of other site > visitors, wouldn't lower my uniqueness from 1 in 1.7 million, then > to 1 in 700,000, to 1 in 500,000.
1st visit: 3 444 000 2nd visit: 3 444 000 / 2 = 1 722 000 3rd visit: 3 444 000 / 3 = 1 148 000 4th visit: 3 444 000 / 4 = 861 000 5th visit: 3 444 000 / 5 = 688 800 6th visit: 3 444 000 / 6 = 574 000 etc ... -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsusbscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk