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 1RqQQr-0002Qo-UC for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:36:10 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 61BE9E08F5; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:35:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB80E08E6 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:34:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkbzt19 with SMTP id zt19so542767bkb.40 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:34:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4VI+7UXHC6ElRhEMPA1kX74hrNhbTJ/XIHNDqX+0KCo=; b=NmB8HPZlv5lKcUGZB2YQTYTKEWLBoV1gzTuyYydtZUDtfFnFxTd+FseOpiU05zdlis p/OUceuY0cab3J2sxzx9gsgnadjBcZg5QdyI97Hgi2tg3hp8P7cf8+iSBkLKvJ8cP0JG zR2h2+wd5A+S0mBtl62wZzpNjy6dcFyUnV/To= 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 Received: by 10.204.129.71 with SMTP id n7mr1103434bks.91.1327588497015; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:34:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.177.18 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:34:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4F21604F.2080309@gmail.com> 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> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:34:56 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 37549f53-35d7-400a-aac3-a1764f55b4f0 X-Archives-Hash: 11f318ca65c92b9f1012aa9984b6dafa On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Dale wrote: > Michael Mol wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Michael Hampicke = wrote: >>>> There is actually a huge amount of information available, giving a hig= h >>>> level of pseudo-uniqueness. There was a web site that showed you how >>>> much it could glean from even an anonymous session, but I can't rememb= er >>>> where is was. Somewhere like the EFF. >>> >>> 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. > =C2=A0I guess you tested before I did. =C2=A0How 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. It looks like the biggest culprits appear to be the available font list and the browser plugin set. Stick to as close-to-core a set of fonts as possible, and that'll likely help. Also disable any plugins you don't need. (FWIW, using the incognito window reduced the number of bits listed in both "Browser Plugin Details" and "system Fonts", and reduced the visible volume of data for "Browser Plugin Details" by about a third.) --=20 :wq