Man, why the fuck don't they just make a powerpoint with bullet points if all the sentences are like that.
[1] https://arith2026.org/program.html (2nd keynote)
They (or rather the LLM that wrote this) missed that this is possibly fingerprintable to browser version range, which is slightly more interesting. Most users aren't spoofing their user agent headers to be a different operating system. Most fingerprinting solutions aren't trying to infer your operating system, they only care about semi-unique things that show up.
It's an interesting finding. I wish they had taken some time to have a real person write it up. This is too heavily LLM written to ignore.
The people behind the LLM behind this blog post are. They're trying to pretend their robots are people to sell other websites' data to their customer. It's easier to pass bot detection gates if you pretend to be a physical machine running Windows or macOS than if you honestly admit you're using Linux on a VM.
I prefer articles like this coming from the other side of the battle (fingerprint.js and friends) because at least their motives are clear.
Would not solve everything but still help a lot.
Javascript systems have long had polyfills for varied browser feature comparability gaps.
Whether you agree with these, making probing detection via fingerprinting illegal would take away this lever. Making surreptitious tracking via fingerprinting illegal? Even for state actors?
Yeah, that's probably reasonable. If someone is going to wear a tracking collar in exchange for "free" services, a little disclosure makes sense.
Yeah, tracking bad, I get it, but are whatever damages that kind of legislation would prevent (probably nothing measurable) really more important than fixing the easy, in our face social problems that politicians could instead be focusing on?
let oldTanh = Math.tanh;
Math.tanh = x => oldTanh(x) + Math.random()/10000000; Math.tanh = Math.random;And for the LLM writing, yes, it's written in the article and blog, it's not hidden or pretending, otherwise I would never publish an article due to lack of time, and I assume
If you have that right, the public should have the right to know you're doing this before they enter your store, so they can avoid it.
Same with the websites, they should, legally, have to say they're about to fingerprint you so that you can close your browser tab and never come back.
If you did it in just your store, that wouldn't be a problem. The correct analogy, however, is "why should it be illegal for me to attach a perfectly traceable and invisible air-tag to you when you enter my store, without your explicit consent, and subsequently follow and document your every movement no matter where you go, as long as that location has a business relationship with my store, and also my store is the most popular chain on the planet that has business relationships with basically any relevant business that exists." And I don't think the answer to this one shouldn't be particularly difficult to arrive at.
That's just a description of you that I share with my other stores. Casinos, Target, Burger King, etc all do this when you get 86'd, for example.
(I have no idea, I don't know too much about this)
joahnn_s•1h ago