[LINK] Panopticlick

[Jan Whitaker]

At 08:50 AM 20/05/2010, Philip Argy you wrote:
>"Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 991,638 tested so
>far.
>
>Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at
>least 19.92 bits of identifying information."
>
>There are lots of IT security, law enforcement and forensic evidence
>implications with this technique, not all of them bad.

But isn't uniqueness the worse situation? Wouldn't you be better off 
a blend in the crowd to avoid personal identification and targeting? 
Or am I think about this backwards?

I ran the test and my numbers were like 7 out of 176 and 2.4 out of 
4.7. I didn't allow javascript.

Within our dataset of several hundred thousand visitors, only one in 
2,635 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that 
conveys 11.36 bits of identifying information.



Then I allowed javascript and ran again. The ratios in the table 
didn't change, including saying no javascript. I allowed for this 
page, which is eff.org, but that code may be running elsewhere and is 
therefore javascript blocked.

Within our dataset of several hundred thousand visitors, only one in 
2,642 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that 
conveys 11.37 bits of identifying information.


Note the minor change. So what is really going on with this thing?

Jan


Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
business: http://www.janwhitaker.com

Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint or 
sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
~Madeline L'Engle, writer

_ __________________ _