You're right. Also people and their needs are different. My needs are philosophical, and commercial pragmatism is of little use to me when it comes to web sites. If I were to assume that all other people were like me I'd be quite mistaken, I'm sure. In fact I'd be mistaken if I were to assume that everyone else would accept my individual freedom to think as I wish as being legitimate.Most websites are not all websites though, and therein lies part of the problem, at least as far as I see it.
You're right. And most web sites don't have malware and don't spam you either.Most websites are not all websites though, and therein lies part of the problem
"After plugins and plugin provided information, we believe that the HTML5 canvas is the single largest fingerprinting threat browsers face today." - Tor Project.
Sites that attempt to do anything like that are those you wouldn't visit anyway.
Marketing for linked in.Why would the NYTimes place .linkin.com cookies on my system?
One for each advertiser.Any why so many cookies?
Advertising targeted at your preferences so you don't get ads for brassieres again.I'll also bet that if you inventory the cookies, they have nothing to do with improving service for the user.
One per site would be enough.
That would only apply to those people who look at ads. For those of us who block perhaps there is some other purpose but one might classify that as cookie spamming.Advertising targeted at your preferences so you don't get ads for brassieres again.
Ads are like cancer, they spread like metastases. The cost to society are enormous.That would only apply to those people who look at ads.
Yes, how about a red bar at the top of cookie sites with wording like "click here to opt in".I'd prefer getting no ads at all! I do not want to be stalked by the marketing industry. And I do not want to be forced to "opt-out" of anything. Opting-in should be the default.
Whether you look at them or not doesn't matter. If you were shown an ad once, they may not want to show it to you again. Or, if you clicked on it, they might want to remember that, too. If the site you were on was a tech site, and you clicked on a RaspberryPi ad, that's informative. If you were on a tech site and clicked on a brassiere ad, that's informative, too. Or maybe not to that advertiser.That would only apply to those people who look at ads.
Except when it's sponsored. Without sponsors, that TV show, and possibly the web site you visited, wouldn't exist.My journey through the web is my own.
.Except when it's sponsored
I can't agree more. Quality stuff is still out there. It's just small signal to high noise to filter.Content on the web would probably be of much smaller but much better quality if the "supported by ads" model went away.
There is, but it's taking more and more effort to find it over time.shepper That you pay for that and still get ads is between you and them and what I consider a bad email service. Why do you use them instead of your own on a FreeBSD system?
I can't agree more. Quality stuff is still out there. It's just small signal to high noise to filter.
Whether you look at them or not doesn't matter. If you were shown an ad once, they may not want to show it to you again.
Right.We're kind of veering off topic here though. Lets all try to keep on track. I'm guilty of this in this thread as well.
Right.
We see various on-line browser and fingerprinting tests from time to time. Here is another one which I just tried. Doileak.com I'm careful about DNS leaks and always do relatively well with these tests generally. It did strike me that they detected two operating systems, which is probably normal for a VPN, but also identifying. Also, I'm not so happy about IPv6. I find it hard to control because I don't know it well enough yet. This test showed they were not able to detect an IPv6 request, which confuses me because I can browse IPv6 sites that have no IPv4 support.
webgl.disabled=true
, and media.peer*
to false. The latter kills off WebRTC AFAIK, which can leak the local subnet IP. Thanks again to the link OJ supplied, which details this pretty well. I'm always a little leary about random "test" links - hope this one is safe A practical approach for defeating Nmap OS-Fingerprinting can be found here:
https://nmap.org/misc/defeat-nmap-osdetect.html
Huh? It gets the bounding box locations for HTML elements and has nothing to do with images or data or anything else.Another function to add to the fingerprint enabler list: getClientRects(). It's about the same as the getImageData() of canvas
Yes, it does. And only from that domain.Ostensibly, the browser is supposed to ask for permission before allowing this type of storage