Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Moose Burger
Just one of them would be enough (using this definition of “unique”). All of them have to be the same for two browsers to be considered identical. That’s why it’s so easy to have a unique one.

I can change my fingerprint just by dragging the window to the other monitor, since my monitors have different resolutions, and screen resolution is part of the fingerprint.

But I highly doubt any outfit who is actually using this technique as a cookie replacement is going for exact matches. They've probably defined some sort of similarity function, and they consider anybody who scores above some threshold to be the same person. That's plenty good enough for their purpose, which is to sharpen up ad delivery and deliver improved audience analytics to their clients. A few false positives or false negatives wouldn't matter.

59 posted on 06/05/2011 11:50:20 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]


To: cynwoody

“But I highly doubt any outfit who is actually using this technique as a cookie replacement is going for exact matches.”

That’s right. I think the panopticlick.eff.org metric is not really very good; that’s why I said “using this definition”. Bad (?) news are, the real uniqueness is much higher when taking “ambiental”/temporal continuity contexts in consideration. I question the “bad” because, well, it’s impossible to do anything in the world without leaving some kind of print. There’s a limit where the paranoia can be useful.


60 posted on 06/05/2011 11:57:44 AM PDT by Moose Burger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson