W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-privacy@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: TPAC breakout session - Is user agent Fingerprinting a lost cause?

From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:18:13 +0200
Message-ID: <508830E5.2020505@blaeu.com>
To: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>
CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-privacy@w3.org" <public-privacy@w3.org>
JC, you are funny. If a user knows how to alter the browser setting to 
block cookies, he/she can undo that for a specific site. There is IMHO 
no reason why a service would have to persist in the user's consent.

Rob

On 24-10-2012 20:08, JC Cannon wrote:
> If the user blocks cookies and is not logged into a service then how would a website be able to persist a user's consent?
>
> JC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 11:01 AM
> To: public-privacy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: TPAC breakout session - Is user agent Fingerprinting a lost cause?
>
> I would like to think that fingerprinting is un-needed.  One of the reasons I like the DNT approach is that it is, ideally, consensus-based on both sides. The alternative is the mutually hostile measure-counter-measure, at the end of which, no-one wins.
>
> Examples:
> * if we block cookies, the sites find other ways to 'tag' us -- like fingerprints. So then we try to reduce the fingerprint surface. And so on.
> * if we block 'known trackers', probably by host address, then the sites would probably start cycling their DNS, or masquerading under the name of a legitimate non-tracking entity (e.g. the first party), and so on.
>
> If a site wants to 'tag' me, I want it consensual and evident; cookies are much more evident than a fingerprint I cannot see.
>
> So, reacting to the thread title:  what was the 'cause' that fingerprint was on, that might now be 'lost'?
>
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 18:18:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 24 October 2012 18:18:56 GMT