[blitmap]

It's frustrating to me that browsers lend themselves so willingly to being fingerprinted, and it's up to the user to stay aware of and keep ahead of these new avenues.

I wish there were 4 modes:

- Standard/light mode

- Dark mode (website has facilities to test for this and style accordingly)

- Dark mode with fake or unknown values advertised to the website

- Dark mode with a user-custom filter applied (like below) that the website cannot test for (it sees untransformed computed styles)

> filter: invert(95%) hue-rotate(190deg)

[noisem4ker]

It's frustrating that we've come to a point where websites can track users by knowing how they set up their browser to render pages. Such information should have no way nor reason to ever be transmitted back from the client to the server in the first place.

[marshray]

One of the original, and continuing, uses of browser scripting is to tweak the layout based on client rendering quirks.

ISTR (late 1990's?) reading about fingerprinting attacks that didn't require script or even CSS. Subtle changes in font size and attributes (bold, italic) may affect the order in which page elements are requested by the browser.

Even if you wanted to, there's simply no reliable way to isolate data about client rendering from any other data exchanged with the server. Even if you did a heroic rearchitecture of the DOM and rendering system, there are still static IP addresses and cookies.

[blitmap]

I contend that while everything about the client cannot be hidden from the server, the number of things that can be identified is increasing.