| 1 |
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:16, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Michael Mol wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Michael Hampicke <gentoo-user@××××.biz> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>>> There is actually a huge amount of information available, giving a high |
| 5 |
>>>> level of pseudo-uniqueness. There was a web site that showed you how |
| 6 |
>>>> much it could glean from even an anonymous session, but I can't remember |
| 7 |
>>>> where is was. Somewhere like the EFF. |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/ |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> My results from work: |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,939,102 tested so far. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that |
| 17 |
>> conveys at least 20.89 bits of identifying information. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Funny, I get exactly the same thing except add one to the large number. |
| 22 |
> I guess you tested before I did. How does one avoid this but still |
| 23 |
> have sites work? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Use Stallman's way [1] |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Seriously, I am not concerned with Google's policy change, it affects |
| 29 |
absolutely nothing on my online life. I keep using their services |
| 30 |
cause I find them the best to use, I would change otherwise. Its the |
| 31 |
same reason I run Windows on my HTPC, and Linux at work and my |
| 32 |
netbook, efficiency. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
If you worry too much, you end up insane. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
[1] http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Daniel da Veiga |
Archives