8 ms·
Presumably the intended outcome would be that sites would be pressured into not being malignant actors with regards to user privacy, rather than everyone just i
by FuckButtons 28d ago
Presumably the intended outcome would be that sites would be pressured into not being malignant actors with regards to user privacy, rather than everyone just ignoring the security notice.
- john_strinlai 28d agoi understand the intention, and i offered my opinion on what the actual outcome would be. ~every piece of data can be used for fingerprinting. settings and preferences, browser, os, etc. fingerprinting is not its own category of data, it's the correlation of regular data. the "pressure" ends up being: stop receiving any data at all (which would obviously break ~everything), or put up a warning (leading to fatigue). consider accessibility settings: absolutely required for some people to browse the internet, but also extremely high-value data for fingerprinting a user. there is no technical method to know whether a site asking about a visitor's accessibility settings is doing it so that they can properly display content or so that they can fingerprint the visitor. (i.e. there is no "evil bit")
- emctech 28d agoI touched on this in my article, once the data has been collected and sent to their servers you have no idea what they do with the information. At least with GDPR it is supposed to be regulated but obviously that is not the case everywhere and websites can still lie.
- sebastiennight 27d ago> there is no "evil bit" There's always been one, but it's been defaulting to 1 ever since the Web 2.0 upgrade, and the API to set it back to 0 has been deprecated.