| 1 |
Michael Mol wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Michael Hampicke <gentoo-user@××××.biz> wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> There is actually a huge amount of information available, giving a high |
| 4 |
>>> level of pseudo-uniqueness. There was a web site that showed you how |
| 5 |
>>> much it could glean from even an anonymous session, but I can't remember |
| 6 |
>>> where is was. Somewhere like the EFF. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/ |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> My results from work: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,939,102 tested so far. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that |
| 16 |
> conveys at least 20.89 bits of identifying information. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Funny, I get exactly the same thing except add one to the large number. |
| 21 |
I guess you tested before I did. How does one avoid this but still |
| 22 |
have sites work? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Dale |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
:-) :-) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or |
| 30 |
how you interpreted my words! |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Miss the compile output? Hint: |
| 33 |
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n" |
Archives