[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/g/ - Technology

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 215 KB, 934x800, panopticlick.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
43481508 No.43481508 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe] [rbt]

>only one in 1,276 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours
>your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 10.32 bits of identifying information

can you beat my high score, /g/?


>> No.43481523

How can I into making my browser more anonymous?

>> No.43481541
File: 54 KB, 626x245, ss+(2014-08-09+at+04.23.29).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>can you beat my high score, /g/?

>> No.43481548

uniqueness and more bits are bad things, bro

>> No.43481550

Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 22.08 bits of identifying information.

How fix?

>> No.43481558

I actually am special snowflake. You're just one dude out of 1000. would disagree about this being a bad thing.

>> No.43481566

>Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 8,640 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

Noscript is your friend.

>> No.43481593

You still convey 10 bits of information. which is low on Panopticlick's dataset. On other datasets, it could be enough to uniquely identify you.

>> No.43481594

lower numbers are better

you're still 7365 off beating the score

>> No.43481601
File: 230 KB, 240x152, 1377589118460.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.43481614
File: 252 KB, 1280x775, Screenshot - 2014.08.09. - 15:32:12.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Suck it.

>> No.43481616


>> No.43481617

Apparently i'm the first German htc Windows Phone user in their dataset. Unique.

>> No.43481629
File: 11 KB, 346x291, 1384121695738.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.43481635

>Not being a special snowflake
>Not ricing out your browser to the max

>> No.43481650

well it gets more bits from me, but wrong ones

>> No.43481683


good job, the NSA will have a had time tracking you as you shitpost on /g/ and masturbate

>> No.43481692
File: 198 KB, 970x644, pa.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.43481713
File: 119 KB, 550x303, amigud.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

1/xx is good the higher xx is right?

>> No.43481788

>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 4,423,817 tested so far.

I'm a pathetic and careless browser and I don't give a shit.

>> No.43481820
File: 41 KB, 926x277, pano.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>1 in 3.4 browsers have no javascript
Mostly google bot right?

>> No.43481821

...and likely the only HTC Windows Phone user on the planet within their dataset.

>> No.43481832

y-you know a unique fingerprint is the worst result you can get, right?

>> No.43481859

>Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 86,743 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

>Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 16.4 bits of identifying information.

Using Lynx

>> No.43481894

People who care about their browser fingerprint likely have NoScript, HTTPSwitchboard or something like that installed, which skews the statistics.

>> No.43481919

Nope. The point is to make it so you blend in rather than stand out by being unique.

>> No.43481933


>> No.43481945

But that's exactly what he said.

>> No.43481973


>> No.43481980
File: 132 KB, 2000x2000, awesome.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 4,423,981 tested so far.
what do I win?

>> No.43482018

customized ads!

>> No.43482047
File: 163 KB, 639x375, Screenshot - 090814 - 23:19:38.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.43482130

This website makes me sad :(

>> No.43482154

No, if xx is higher that means that only one in xx have his fingerprint. His fingerprint should be as common as possible, meaning that xx should be as low as possible. Therefore 1/xx is good the lower xx is.

>> No.43482158

I win?

Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 4,424,049 tested so far.

Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 22.08 bits of identifying information.

The measurements we used to obtain this result are listed below. You can read more about our methodology, statistical results, and some defenses against fingerprinting in this article.

>> No.43482180

With scripts disabled (my normal browsing style) I get one in 113,572, otherwise I'm a special snowflake too.

>> No.43482181

ITT people misunderstand statistics

>> No.43482194
File: 62 KB, 988x809, Face_Palm_by_magicswordz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

jesus fuck, /g/

>> No.43482199


>> No.43482212

for firefox, use random agent spoofer and noscript addons

>> No.43482213

>not understanding metairony

>> No.43482234


>> No.43482277 [DELETED] 
File: 179 KB, 936x611, Untitled2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

how is it that I fucked up? I always assume that every machine running windows is already compromised, but is windows so bad that it actually is a tell all sign for them? Or is it my browser config?

>> No.43482287

get rekt sheeples

>> No.43482331
File: 179 KB, 936x611, Untitled2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

attempt 2, first one was unique.

>> No.43482352

Very few are on firefox 33 yet. Spoof your user agent.

>> No.43482364
File: 191 KB, 1035x652, 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.43482396

>Not striving to be a special snowflake

>> No.43482456

>Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 92,171 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

>> No.43482857
File: 244 KB, 914x790, winning.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

what do i win

>> No.43482892

Easiest way to lower the number is to use one of the most popular browser's user agent. Aka Google Chrome.

>> No.43482907

i dont understand
itseems everybody is searching to get a unique fingerprint?
but the goal is to have the most common fingerprint so you're not unique no?

>> No.43482942

you are missing the point

>> No.43483018

Security in numbers.

>> No.43483027
File: 190 KB, 815x638, help.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

hlp pls

>> No.43483076

I wonder if enough people spoof user agent to affect OS and browser marketshare statistics

>> No.43483079
File: 124 KB, 949x805, suckit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Yay, higher numbers are better, right?

>> No.43483168

what is most popular user agent?

>> No.43483237

Atleast change your user agent.

>> No.43483255

Google chrome or GoogleBot I guess

>> No.43483274

block java and flash (no fonts info)
plugins.enumerable_names leave that empty (no Browser Plugin Details)

>> No.43483315

full string please

>> No.43483372

how does that gets my resolution>

>> No.43483416
File: 156 KB, 1024x186, selection.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Welp the NSA knows everything I'm doing now.

>> No.43483426
File: 354 KB, 1920x1080, Screenshot 2014-08-09 at 10.15.06.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.43483452

Nope, says Firefox here:
Probably influenced by the eff's audience though.

>> No.43483481
File: 155 KB, 977x341, who woh.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

which one of you?

>> No.43483485

Are there any firefox addons that hide your plugin info? I run noscript but I don't want it leaking on sites that I allow no matter what

>> No.43483570

Please tell your user agent string. Can't find anything that common. Telling it to us makes it even more common.

>> No.43483580



>> No.43483627

you retards realize that just because you aren't unique here doesn't mean you aren't unique out in the web.

for starts, just blocking javascript is an immediate, unique, redflag outside of this retarded test.

>> No.43483818

That's certainly true, but it's still better than not blocking javascript. If no javascript makes you rare, what you leak with it on makes you unique no matter where you go.

>> No.43484020


How the fuck do we fix it?

>> No.43484432
File: 187 KB, 1039x726, a8b040809b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Disable Javascript you gigantic faggots

>> No.43484534



>> No.43484745

In what way would disabling javascript make your browser more unique outside of the test? Are you going to tell me that I should activate javascript to make myself less trackable? Yeah, fucking right. Canvas-Fingerprinting works with information mostly gathered by javascript. Certainly it is not the only thing you have to do but it is a good start.

>> No.43485311

kwl site OP
unique with desktop ff =/
but 1 in 737k with ff on android.

>> No.43485407

Pale Moon has started randomizing some of the data to guarantee you're always unique, but you'll appear as a different unique each time so they can't correlate you to your previous visits. Good move?

>> No.43485465

>Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 11,992 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

>Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 13.55 bits of identifying information.

Is this good or bad?

>> No.43485480
File: 2 KB, 1022x56, res-wtf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Why does this happen? I'm on 1920x1080. In Chromium it shows up properly but on Firefox it shows 1728x972 which doesn't make any sense.

>> No.43485499


>> No.43485525


>> No.43485532

Since you are quite common they can't track you.

>> No.43485576

so if I install a single obscure font I become a whole lot easier to track?

>> No.43485585

>one in 21,377 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

th-thanks noscript

>> No.43485614

turn off flash and java

>> No.43485769

>No javascript
Enjoy your not being able to post.

>> No.43485781

We need a guide to become a greyman

>> No.43485887

>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 4,424,985 tested so far.
I'm special.

>> No.43485930

Which VM are you running

>> No.43485949

shit I really fucked up. I need to install all them privacy add-ons. I only did it on my Debian install not on my windows one which is probably more important

>> No.43485982
File: 70 KB, 412x624, jews-post.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Everybody in the thread got tricked. By even visiting the site, you've already lost. Who do you think pulls the strings of the EFF? What do you think they're going to do now that they've built a massive fingerprint database of ostensible "tech-savvy" users? You idiots wanted to pat yourself on the back about how careful and secure and elite you are, so you voluntarily turned over all your information to people who will use it for nefarious purposes.

>> No.43486045
File: 132 KB, 1138x682, scrot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.43486097

>this page has security vulnerabilities

into the trash

>> No.43486125

> being this dense

>> No.43486132

I figured out how to beat Panopticlick

>go to Panopticlick - it says you're unique
>clear cookies and change IP
>go to Panopticlick again -- it says you're 1 in 2 million
>clear cookies and change IP
>go to Panopticlick again -- it says you're 1 in 1.5 million
>clear cookies and change IP
>go to Panopticlick again -- it says you're 1 in 1 million
>clear cookies and change IP
>go to Panopticlick again -- it says you're 1 in 880 thousand
>continue until you're satisfied

>> No.43486147

>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 4,425,167 tested so far.

Good thing most of it is false info which is different for ever website I visit.
I love Firefox addons.

>> No.43486382
File: 624 KB, 2040x1200, bravogates.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]



>> No.43486387
File: 32 KB, 653x434, terrible.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

that site looks terrible
no pics and stuff

>> No.43486403

show us your score fag

>> No.43486440
File: 38 KB, 619x334, score.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.43486601

Good Heavens, just look at the Time[zone]!

>> No.43486621
File: 19 KB, 183x232, 1394381411028.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Oy vey! I told you six million times to shut up and keep the goyim falling in the trick

>> No.43486645

Arizona, the home of the herbin' cowboy

>> No.43486772


here you go fay/g/ets. don't get mad if some of your shit sites break. read before you do shit

>> No.43486870
File: 892 KB, 1837x1115, firefoxsecconfig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Here's something I found from an older thread.

>> No.43486942


Funny how my Opera also gives this result, 12.17 master race reporting in.

>> No.43486997

>thinks being unique is good

>> No.43487037
File: 329 KB, 2554x1251, surf-segfault.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Ez. I managed to get the beyond-unique of "impossible to fingerprint" because it segfaults my browser.

Here's an image of the stacktrace from running surf with flash enabled at this address:

>> No.43487078

What is that?

>> No.43487080
File: 174 KB, 1107x719, unique-not-even-trying.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

i'm unique with flashblock and noscript. wut. I guess it's the resolution?

>> No.43487352

Try making plugins.enumerable_names in about:config blank.

>> No.43487373

why do so many of you have flash installed and enabled? it's not 2001 anymore. get rid of it.

>> No.43487384

muh youtube/soundcloud

>> No.43487419

Without javacript they can't track across different sites though.

>> No.43487428

you can use youtube without flash since like two years ago

>> No.43487476

Try actually using NoScript. Your screenshot tells me that you've got javascript enabled.

>> No.43487487

Mine is "unique" and I don't have anything installed

>> No.43487527

But you are limited to shit resolution unless your browser supports MSE.

>> No.43487595

i'm fine with no 1080p since everything looks like shit on youtube anyway, and the sound profiles for AAC in 1080p/720p are the same.

>> No.43487618

>shit resolution
I don't expect 1080p quality from youtube anyway. I also have no problem giving that up to not use flash.

>> No.43487708

>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 4,425,618 tested so far.

get on my level faggot

>> No.43487745

>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 4,425,624 tested so far.
Bitch nigga, get on my level.
I didn't even enable javascript.

>> No.43487923

what are some common user agents I can use?

>> No.43487950

>Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 2,212,836 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

>Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 21.08 bits of identifying information.

>> No.43487963

Never heard of Secret Agent?

>> No.43488022

i'm guessing the font sets are a big part of what makes my fingerprint unique, guess not many people have those Solid Edge fonts installed.

>> No.43488305
File: 50 KB, 662x295, vlc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.43488390
File: 232 KB, 932x736, dwb.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

> Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 4,425,840 tested so far.
b-but i like my DWB

>> No.43488520

>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 4,425,875 tested so far.

>> No.43488566


Jesus christ /g/

Unique = the worst possible outcome

>> No.43488614

but then again, should i just use IE like every other faggot?

>> No.43488718

Why would you think that would possibly help you

>> No.43488774
File: 8 KB, 530x46, Hue.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.43488874

ITT: /g/ doesn't know shit about technology

Consumerist whores

>> No.43488885

Cm11 with chrome was unique, K.

>> No.43488965

>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 4,425,996 tested so far. >Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 22.08 bits of identifying information.

>> No.43489000

The goal is to not be unique, you let the ball in the net, you fucking lost, are you an idiot?

>> No.43489017

Nobody cares about your baseless paranoia. Contain your autism.

>> No.43489035

see >>43489017

>> No.43489042


>> No.43489057

I installed it on firefox, looks good

>> No.43489090
File: 181 KB, 927x635, ayy_lmao.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.43489137

Don't fucking post in the thread then.

>> No.43489156

But mocking autistic people is the only way I can get an erection.

>> No.43489173
File: 195 KB, 1014x634, rekt.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.43489237

I'd rather be unique so I don't get correlated with somebody else. What if somebody with the same browser fingerprint as you is a terrorist or a pedophile or a Muslim? The more unique your fingerprint is, the less likely that is to happen.

>> No.43489271
File: 40 KB, 922x247, Screenshot - 090814 - 22:55:04.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Must have fucked up while setting up my useragent, could a windows user using firefox 31 give me his user agent?

>> No.43489292

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/31.0

>> No.43489336


For everyone who is 'unique' or wanting to lower their score, I saved a post here a while back with some privacy tips (Blender alone got me from ~500k browsers down to OPs level)

>> No.43489363
File: 40 KB, 907x245, Screenshot - 090814 - 22:59:47.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/31.0
Much better, thanks a lot.
I wish firefox stopped changing version numbers so fast, changing the user agent everytime there"s an update's really tedious.

>> No.43489368
File: 186 KB, 917x628, pano.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

This is the best i could do.

>> No.43489376

Change your DPI settings.

>> No.43489379

>32bit OS

>> No.43489439
File: 194 KB, 1031x817, HiG.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I'm happy with this, considering I don't sacrifice any functionality with it. Sure that getting a ridiculously common browser is possible, but not without some effort.

>> No.43489465

So use the user agent of an ESR release, those only change once a year and stuff like TBB is based on ESR releases so it's not that unique.

>> No.43489512

noice, what do you use?

>> No.43489542

So I have been thinking, what if you took the set of non-unique user agents (so that you are rarely actually unique), and display a random one for each new page? That way it gets even harder to track you across pages >>43482212

the more unique it is, the more likely you are to be correlated with very few people.

What if you are correlated with only one person instead of 10? Does not that mean you are in a worse spot?

>> No.43489547

Fags, just install Blender for FF.

>> No.43489559


>> No.43489589
File: 176 KB, 985x672, implying.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

What do I win?

>> No.43489594

>Bloating your browser when you only need to change a line in your about:config

>> No.43489638
File: 1.79 MB, 400x600, Sl1k1du.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>go to about:config
>enter new string
>fill it with this
>Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)
>install noscript
Problem solved.

>> No.43489641

Pale Moon randomizes some stuff in the plugin data (like the installation order) so that you'll appear different on each page load.

Of course they'll probably just uniquely identify you as "that one asshole who uses Pale Moon".

>> No.43489663

Half the shit recommended ITT is bloat. You don't need ABE _AND_ a shitton of plzdonttrackme addons.

You can get EasyPrivacy which blocks fucking everything from the get go.

>> No.43489722

If you're not a criminal, why do you care about fingerprinting?

>> No.43489726

Do you think google bots crawl search enginges? Pages that were specifically disallowed in robots.txt?

>> No.43489750

disable js
empty ua

"Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 25,885 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours."

>> No.43489752
File: 2.98 MB, 1280x720, costanza.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.43489779
File: 86 KB, 517x151, Screenshot from 2014-08-09 23:22:36.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Hell yes! Seems like I'm safe from NSA and the like.

>> No.43489852
File: 28 KB, 300x299, MemberLogo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Within our dataset of 4.3 billion visitors your IP address appears to be unique :^)

>> No.43489866

tell us how you got that anon

>> No.43489919
File: 186 KB, 910x623, pano2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Screen res plays a big part in it
my 1920x1080 score >>43489368
<<1280x768 score

How do i stop it from reporting the resolution?

>> No.43489957

install noscript

>> No.43489989

aren't you behind 7 proxies? do you have a static IP? are you a newfriend?

>> No.43490095

my browser is unique but I am using user agent / language spoofing


>> No.43490159

Are you spoofing to the same thing every time?
Are you spoofing to something obviously malformed?

>> No.43490374
File: 185 KB, 910x628, pano3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I have noscript already.
Blocking it just feels like cheating to me.

>> No.43490587

>use Blender
>still unique

>> No.43492115

post your values

>> No.43492133

though it's probably just your addons anyway
use noscript

>> No.43492154
File: 8 KB, 159x914, didn'tfitin1screen.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

My guess is a combination of plugins and fonts. Why fonts is beyond me

>> No.43492312

>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 4,426,810 tested so far.

>> No.43492339

Why is it bad to be unique among only 4 million when there are over 7 billion people on the planet?

>> No.43492342

With EFF forbidden by NS
"Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 20,590 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours."

>> No.43492370

I'm fucking unique
"at least 22.08 bits of identifying information"
fuck everything

>> No.43492423

Okay, OP, you've had your fun.
Now show us the values.

>> No.43492439

yeah op spill the beans, you'll get more using it and we can all blend in together

>> No.43492469

lynx says one in 2,213,439 are the same as mine.

>> No.43492486
File: 15 KB, 837x412, browser.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.43492490

What is the most default fingerprint you can possibly have? Assuming javascript is disabled what pieces of information can they even gather?

>> No.43492535

This site is designed like shit. Let me break it down so everyone can understand how the scores work.
Low Number > High number > Unique

>> No.43492542

dis niqqa srs?

>> No.43492562

Nah fuck that, I want this guy >>43489090 to show us

>> No.43492600

shit we need that one then.

probably some android ua with all those shitty things around the world.

>> No.43492654

>my rarely-used chrome is unique
>so is my firefux
This computer is *almost* stock software thu :(

>> No.43492665
File: 155 KB, 940x339, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Beat this motherfucker

>> No.43492677
File: 101 KB, 1480x460, finger.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.43492686


>> No.43492736

For Chrome, install Chameleon. Makes Chrome as fingerprint-proof as TorBrowser.

>> No.43492892
File: 203 KB, 862x407, Screen Shot 2014-08-10 at 02.48.16.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

1 in 3,377 browsers, using Chrome with chameleon installed. No need to block Javascript, so browsing isn't a pain in the ass.


>> No.43492971

You spoof and change your useragent for that

>> No.43493012

hint: it's firefox

>> No.43493093 [DELETED] 
File: 142 KB, 599x348, unique or something.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I just got that too~!

>> No.43495213

tell us which signature faget

>> No.43495229

agent, w/e

>> No.43496202

Had a custom installation of Firefox recently that got 1 in 777, was kinda freaky when it popped up, thought it was some mistake so I closed the browser (it's portable), made a copy of the folder, then restarted it, got 1 in 777 again so, now I use that.

>> No.43496301
File: 434 KB, 1362x910, lel.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I don't get it, is this good or bad?

>> No.43496393
File: 884 KB, 2788x1776, Screen Shot 2014-08-10 at 1.18.28 AM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

according to their database, I'm unique.


>> No.43496712

bad thing, easier target for the bogeyman

>> No.43496884

not really.

the database is probably full of "security conscious" individuals who do shit like spoof their useragent and black javashit. probably don't use homOSeX either.

this test is complete shit.

>> No.43497064

By using only default settings. Shit like noscript, adblock and any plugins will all raise the numbers.

>> No.43497085

The test is shit, but useful.
There are an absurd number of methods that can be used to uniquely identify a user out of a large stream of traffic.
Being "unique" among any number of users is perfectly acceptable. Being uniquely identified as any particular user is not.
For example, I could constantly change the fonts in my system, change time zones, useragents, system language and external IP address, disable HTML5 Canvas and WebGL, and I would be as unique as any other user but make it far less likely that any entity would be able to tie my identity to another user.

>> No.43497129

To reiterate, Panopticlick's goal is for the purpose of preventing tracking the visitation patterns of any particular user across the web, denying him his privacy.
However what I have stated is the method to denying any particular tracker my individual identity across the web, stretching to hundreds of potential identities that may or may not be myself, sustaining my anonymity.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.