Comment on Digital Fingerprinting: Google launched a new era of tracking worse than cookie banners | Tuta
original_reader@lemm.ee 1 year agoNeither well protect you truly from fingerprinting, sadly.
Like, why not? The article says:
“And this is exactly why Google wants to use digital fingerprinting: It is way more powerful than cookie-based tracking, and it can’t be blocked for instance by switching to a privacy-first browser.”
If I use Firefox and Firefox doesn’t send anything to the website, then how is it fingerprinting me?
I get that if you use Android (which is normally tied to Google), you’re still subject to see it on Google websites, but how will it work otherwise?
They can block domains known to collect fingerprinting data but yes, they don’t block fingerprinting itself.
PopUpOff gets rid of the box on most sites without having to give your consent. Can’t remember the last time an annoying cookie disclaimer blocked me from web content.
I wasn’t complaining about annoying cookie banners, I was complaining about data collection.
ZeroGravitas@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Sure, but look at it this way. Fingerprints are benefiting the advertisers, and their purpose is to better target ads. Well I say fingerprint the hell out of everything, but I’ll make sure no ads get through. If we all do that, what’s the added value of fingerprinting then?
original_reader@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Sure. You can still be profiled, though. That can open doors for discrimination or other unsavory agendas. One also loses a measure of anonymity. Users don’t clearly see how and know that they are tracked, meaning there’s a loss of transparency.
It’s not just about ads.
ZeroGravitas@lemm.ee 1 year ago
No argument from me. But we’re talking about a byproduct of a commercial endeavour, without financial gain there would be less reason to do it in the first place.
If nothing else, at least they make less money and I have a better experience online.