Which raises far more serious security concerns than reporting browser
capabilities.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: Bug-wget [bug-wget-bounces+smetz3=gmu@gnu.org] on behalf of Bruno
Haible [br...@clisp.org]
Sent:
ge...@mweb.co.za wrote:
> I wonder about the reason given: "To avoid compatibility issues."
> That was - if I recall correctly - the reason for having the string
> to start with: So that servers can format pages to suit the capabilities
> of the browser and version used.
That was how web
On 2/24/20 11:58 AM, ge...@mweb.co.za wrote:
> Interesting - forcing a user agent string could be in violation of GDPR since
> it would definitely make the user environments more identifiable. The
> "fingerprinting" discussion refers. On the other hand, if all browsers
> henceforth were to send
Interesting - forcing a user agent string could be in violation of GDPR since
it would definitely make the user environments more identifiable. The
"fingerprinting" discussion refers. On the other hand, if all browsers
henceforth were to send the same string the opposite would be true.
I
Follow-up Comment #6, bug #57884 (project wget):
There seem to be concerns and actions taken by browser vendors about regarding
the User-Agent header. It's about "freezing" the User-Agent string once and
for all to avoid compatibility issues.
Is this an option for us ?
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #57884 (project wget):
I see the point but start be become curious about backwards compatibility and
about how browsers and other web clients behave.
Transmitting the OS type is likely not handled by GDPR, as it is likely not
considered "personal data" (data that is
