Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by swatcoder 597 days ago
Imagine you sat one of you users down, and explained the details of how your fingerpriting system worked.

You explain that their browser has all kinds of little, subtle leaks of information about what software they're using, what operating system they're using, whether it's up to date, what hardware they're running, whether they're in a public space or an office or a home, which city they're in, what ISP they use, how they've configured their monitor and screen, what settings they set in their browser, what language they use at home, etc etc

You explain that you can collect all this information without them knowing you were doing it, without them really being able to stop you if they wanted to, and that you can collate it into an identifier that lets you know every time they visit your site even if they don't tell you themselves in some way, and with no way to ask you to stop.

And you explain that you do this for them, to make their experience of your site better for them, and harder for them to accidentally break.

How do you think they'd respond?

To be clear, I'm not asking this as some rhetorical trick. There absolutely are users who wouldn't care in the least, and who might even see you as really clever for doing it.

But that's how you can know if it's bad or not. If you think your users would be creeped out or otherwise troubled by it, or might feel like you've invaded their privacy or their right to control their own experience in their own browser, then you already know it's bad. If you think they wouldn't mind, then -- and only then -- maybe it's not.

3 comments

Your example sounds like what people do in person all the time.

My local barber knows me when I walk in. He knows what I look like, what I wear, what I usually order.

He uses this to make my experience better. He saves me from having to tell him what I want, he knows what seat I like to sit in, and so on.

I don't have to tell him I'm coming in. He can figure it out by looking at me walking in the door.

You can even tell who you speak with by recognizing the caller's voice, without seeing him.

You can recognize a writer by his style.

What GP is trying to say it's ok for people to use pattern matching but it's immoral if they use machines to do pattern matching.

But why?
> by looking at me

Your presented person is very different from an amalgamation of clues which are not meant to disclose public information and are not you.

But this is easy to solve. Instead of rationalizing call up a customer and try it.

I think that's a solid model to use, however, I would argue that its safe to assume that: ** There absolutely are users who wouldn't care in the least, and who might even see you as really clever for doing it.** Makes up >= 95% of recurrent anonymous users by default.
How is this different from using cookies?