Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Mick]

On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 16:04:45 Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:34:56AM -0500, Michael Mol wrote:
> > >>> 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.
> > >  I guess you tested before I did.  How 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.
>
> I get almost the same numbers with just using NoScript and Flashblock. (And
> the above result when I allow the Java applet and JavaScript).
>
> This backs me up in using noscript and flashblock. Sometimes I doubt myself
> when I get asked once more why I would use NoScript in times when most of
> the web relies on JS. I then say that privacy and comfort is more
> important to me than having to allow JS on a site from time to time. (Even
> though some sites obviously don't work without it, such as video portals,
> most of them still do, albeit some gt a borked layout from it).

I get better results with Opera (with everything other than Cookies enabled):

only one in 215,475 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 17.72 
bits of identifying information.
-- 
Regards,
Mick