From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RqZqm-0001Pl-1T for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:39:32 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 41EC3E0AB8; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:39:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out6.iinet.net.au (outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out6.iinet.net.au [203.59.1.109]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B1CE0AAB for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:38:20 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAHjxIU/Lzj+s/2dsb2JhbABChQupSIEFgXIBAQUjZgsNCwICJgICVxmuI5FcBIEvh2oBEQoIAgYIAgQCBwIFAgIBBAUggxUSAWkCAgUDA0qCBoEWBIg9kjkijGWBOg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,576,1320595200"; d="scan'208";a="298148371" Received: from unknown (HELO moriah.localdomain) ([203.206.63.172]) by outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out6.iinet.net.au with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2012 08:38:19 +0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by moriah.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2543A1FFC3B for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:38:19 +0800 (WST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at lan.localdomain Received: from moriah.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (moriah.lan.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YWiYZwHq5wx0 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:38:15 +0800 (WST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by moriah.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B23D75113 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:38:15 +0800 (WST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes From: William Kenworthy To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: References: <4F20FDB1.1030100@gmail.com> <201201261007.53041.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <20120126113314.28857d24@digimed.co.uk> <201201261257.00153.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <20120126135046.196f8c4b@digimed.co.uk> <4F215DA5.4010003@hadt.biz> <4F21604F.2080309@gmail.com> <20120126160444.GA826@eisen.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:38:15 +0800 Message-ID: <1327624695.12117.4.camel@moriah> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7e16f30f-9f43-49b0-89c1-9eaeb5c71943 X-Archives-Hash: ef34a3442cbfc794c3a4014c61abda59 On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 11:14 -0500, Michael Mol wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM, 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). > > FWIW, I'm not using NoScript or Flashblock, only an Adblock. And > Chrome blocked the Java applet both in the normal and incognito modes. > > To turn this on its head ... rather than hiding, is there a way to create identical browsers that pollute their (google et al.) databases? Perhaps a read only VM with a standard fit out? (noscript etc. - basically a sandboxed browser for the paranoid!) or does such a thing already exist? BillK