A fascinating website. I don’t know what else to say about it but I encourage you you to read up.
5 Likes
While LinkedIn is abhorrent, I don’t think this is as bad as the website makes it out to be.
1 Like
For the average not so privacy and tech savvy user, we should not downplay how bad LinkedIn is. Even abhorrent but not horrendous is still not good. Not even sure what the difference is, they’re all synonyms of bad.
2 Likes
I have an extra special deep hatred for LinkedIn.
1 Like
I just meant, it’s so bad already, I don’t think this is the least of its problems.
1 Like
TL;DR: LinkedIn scans your browser for extensions & pillages that data for profit. This is apparently illegal in some jurisdictions
I do appreciate their presentation & delivery. This is a very readable, yet detailed report. But the language is admittedly pretty biased at points, making emotionally-charged arguments instead of fact-based reporting. And the site is ultimately just trying to separate readers from their money
I do already operate under the assumption that every website can/does scan my browser for installed extensions in this manner. PG only recommends adblocking extensions & suggests reducing/eliminating extension usage
6 Likes
Honestly I was kinda surprised that people made a big deal out of this. Yes I think it should be illegal, but isn’t this just standard browser fingerprinting that every well resourced tech company is doing?
3 Likes
If it is illegal in certain countries then they clearly shouldn’t be doing it.
Yet here we are. Big tech does whatever it wants like usual.
5 Likes
One the one hand, this does sound like what modt fingerprinting websites canand are doing. On the other, it sounds like it’s doing that to an even larger and more worrying and depeer extent.
1 Like
I think fingerprinting needs to be focused on more.
In my experience, there is no, “reducing fingerprinting”, it is all or nothing. You either are easily fingerprinted and therefore tracked on all websites that do it, or you have found a way to prevent it. Using Mullvad/Tor Browser or different browser profiles or an anti-fingerprinting browser.
I am not sure about other things they say, but Hydraveil/Simplified privacy definitely has a point with fingerprinting.
If I may ask, what’s the worst LinkedIn can do on a GrapheneOS phone?
Not sure if what they’re claiming about some of these points is accurate though. They mentioned that LibreWolf failed the more advanced fingerprinting detection test, but isn’t LibreWolf technically just using Arkenfox like settings under the hood? I bring this up because, apparently, both Firefox and Safari are able to beat that advanced fingerprinting systems, and from what I understand, Brave was the browser that failed .
And for my own testing, I ended up with the same results that the article is stating here. Although I should mention I was using Firefox, and not Librewolf.
I imagine if you sign in via Vanadium using a VPN they could tie your LinkedIn identity with a generic GrapheneOS device, which is still something. For them it will probably tell them “Joe Smith has a fingerprint that’s very similar to all the other people on GrapheneOS”.
It’s obviously not as revealing the average user having all this variation that gives a much more unique fingerprint, but it’s still a data point for them to work with nonetheless.
thx for sharing. Do you know if Brave ever responded to this or improved after?
1 Like
Where?
Not really anymore
1 Like
This was in reference to the link Expert4870 posted above. In that links FAQ, they have a section on ‘why not use LibreWolf,’ which seems to me, like it’s either entirely incorrect, or relying on half truths just to sell a product. As the other article I linked stated, Firefox survives the advanced fingerprinting test at fingerprint.com, and my own hands on testing confirmed that to be the case. At least for me anyway. Given that, I’m assuming LibreWolf would surely pass it as well.
I looked into this right after reading the article when it was first published. The irony is that the only people talking about it was someone from the Mozilla team, talking about Brave’s failure comes down to it leaking too much GPU info. Brave developers and their community haven’t really acknowledged it at all, or at least than what I found, other than some old Github post that didn’t really go anywhere.
As the article mentioned, Brave is still solid for your baseline fingerprinting needs it just fails on the advanced fingerprint tracking. The part I find weird is the Safari comparison. Safari relies on randomization too, but it handles the advanced stuff flawlessly. It made me wonder why Brave doesn’t do it as well.
Maybe the real issue here is that employers are somehow using this info to reject/disregard applications?
1 Like
Was looking to see if issue was raised in the brave commmunity forum. Is thisthe right issue? Or are we talking about a different one? I think we should at least try to follow up and urge them to respond.