Re: PING [call for consensus] - publish fingerprinting guidance as a Working Draft Interest Group Note


2015-10-19 15:35 GMT+01:00 Nat Sakimura <>:

> I am fine with publishing it.

If it allows further work, then this is a good idea.

> Re: first NOTE in the document, i.e., identification and correlation,
> generally speaking, I have an impression that identification is an
> inter-temporal correlation within a site, and "correlation" is the case
> where cross-site/domain correlation is possible in addition. At least,
> that's how I explain the pseudonymity and verinymity.

I think it's just a matter of wording. Actually it could be simplified by
"an online party can correlate multiple visits"
"an online party can link separate visits".

Makes the matter clearer in my opinion.


"Browser fingerprinting provides privacy concerns even" I would replace
"provides" with "brings" - again, just a matter of wording, although in the
previous case it makes it much more clearer IMO.

Additionally it might be extended a bit, for example why not including a
discussion of other sources of identifiers, that can possibly change with
time (even in short intervals).

For some reason I also have an odd feeling sometimes "fingerprint(ing)"
could be replaced with identification/identifiers.

For example: "cookie-like fingerprinting". When we speak about setting and
reading - is it still  fingerprinting? But if it is, then it is definitely
active (because: setting"), so why not in this case merge it with 3.2.

Please pardon me for my academic blurb ;)


Received on Monday, 19 October 2015 20:38:06 UTC