Advertisers track you with device fingerprinting and behaviour profiling now. Firefox doesn’t do much to obscure the more advanced methods of tracking.
unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org 2 months ago
ngwoo@lemmy.world 2 months ago
It’s really strange how they specifically mention HTML5 canvas when you can run any fingerprinter test on the internet and see that Firefox does nothing to obfuscate that. You can run a test in Incognito mode, start a new session on a VPN, run another test, and on Firefox your fingerprint will be identical.
icydefiance@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Well yeah, they’re just blocking known fingerprinting services. If you use a tool that they don’t recognize, it’ll still work.
The only alternative is probably to disable WebGL entirely, which isn’t a reasonable thing to do by default.
veniasilente@lemm.ee 2 months ago
WebGL
I wish Firefox had a per-site or per-domain preference for WebGL (as well as for wasm, etc), the same way we have per-site cookies or notifs preferences. It’d help clear most issues regarding this.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
Honestly would be hard to do. There a perfectly legitimate and everyday uses for pretty much everything used in fingerprinting. Taking them away or obscuring them in one way or another would break so much.
Mubelotix@jlai.lu 2 months ago
EU outlaws it
TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 2 months ago
The EU isn’t the only place on the planet, even if its laws have an impact.
where_am_i@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Yeah, you need uMatrix. although it can be tricky to use.
MrPoopbutt@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Don’t all the advanced ways rely on JavaScript?
hoot@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
Lots do. But do you know anyone that turns JS off anymore? Platforms don’t care if they miss the odd user for this - because almost no one will be missed.
pixelscript@lemm.ee 2 months ago
“Anymore”? I’ve never met a single soul who knows this is even possible. I myself don’t even know how to do it if I wanted to.
I do use NoScript, which does this on a site-by-site basis, but even that is considered extremely niche. I’ve never met another NoScripter in the wild.
deranger@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Why not just use ublock medium mode?
github.com/gorhill/…/Blocking-mode:-medium-mode
zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev 2 months ago
Am I in the wild? I use it.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I like the grid add-on for Firefox. It disables 3rd party pretty much anything by default. And you can control cookies separately from everything else, and I can’t remember any time I’ve needed to enable those cookies to get a site working properly (whereas sometimes you need to enable scripting, media, or iframe for cdn or something).
MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world 2 months ago
uBlock origin + NoScript for me. I deal with the bigger umbrella of scripts with uBlock and then fine tune permissions to the ones that uBlock allowed with NoScript.
They might be fingerprinting me using these two extensions though.
pmc@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
I use LibreJS with few exceptions. If I need to use a site that requires non-free JavaScript, I’ll use a private browsing window or (preferably) Tor Browser.
Septimaeus@infosec.pub 2 months ago
Not all but most, yes. But TBF, sites that still function with JS disabled tend to have the least intrusive telemetry, and might pre-date big data altogether.
Regardless, unless the extent of a page’s analytics is a “you are the #th visitor” counter, all countermeasures must remain active.