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

On Oct 24, 2012, at 11:08 , JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com> 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? 

In a world where consent is sought and respected, why would the user block cookies?

> 
> 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.
> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 18:12:07 UTC