Why isn't randomized fingerprinting the default?

Questions
1

Every browser, mobile or desktop, that I used either had a near uninique or unique fingerprint(Firefox, Ironfox, Fennec, DDG Browser, For Browser, Mullvad Browser, Librewolf…), the only one that has not been fingerprinted was Brave Browser, but I’m reluctant to use it because they seem shaddy, and it is US based.

Why isn’t randomized fingerprinting the default like it is in Brave?

What’s the point on blocking most trackers if you can still be fingerprinted?

I know that diminishing the attack surface is recommended and depending on your threat model it may be enough, but it seems pointless, an ever losing battle. Maybe I’m just catastrophizing.

2

Because the owners of the upstream code (Chrome/Chromium) has a business model of uniquely identifying people and selling targeted ad spots.

1 Like
3

Your method of detecting whether a fingerprint is unique is flawed.

It depends on what it tries to protect in particular. For some metrics it only makes sense to randomize, for others it only makes sense to make them equal, for others both work fine. But in the end it does not matter which method is used to protect something. It matters that the real value is hidden and that enough users use the same method to hide it.

4 Likes
4

I use https://coveryourtracks.eff.org

5

See:

1 Like