[freeamz]

Feel like all this cookies thing is just white wash, when if you enable JS then they can track you no matter if you have cookies or not!

Nothing is private: https://nothingprivate.gkr.pw

More effort ought to be put into how to make web spec to NOT be able track user even if JS is turned on.

Browser vendor Brave, Firefox suppose to privacy browser are NOT doing anything about it.

At this point, do we need to using JS disabled browser to really get privacy on the web?

[idle_zealot]

> At this point, do we need to using JS disabled browser to really get privacy on the web?

My thoughts are that we need a distinction between web pages (no JS) which are minimally interactive documents that are safe to view, and web apps (sites as they exist now) which require considerable trust to allow on your device. Of course, looking that the average person's installed app list indicates that we have a long way to go culturally with regards to establishing a good sense of digital hygiene, even for native software.

[wtallis]

It doesn't help that web browsers aren't even trying to help users make the distinction. They have an ever-growing list of features and permissions that sites can take advantage of, with no attempt to coalesce anything into a manageable user interface. Instead, it takes a hundred clicks to fully trust or distrust a site/app.

[freeamz]

More UI/UX distinction is needed! Just the green lock for security! The browser should indicate the level of privacy of the page. If the page use no js or any GPU compromising (css I'm looking at you), then it gets a green kind. For every privacy/security compromising feature you add the turns yellow. Once it start to ask for WebUSB, MIDI, then it should be in some kind of Native Mode. More like a UI/UX issue for the major browser makers!

[iggldiggl]

The problem is that there is a lot of grey area between pure document-style pages and full-on apps (take online shops for example) and even for the former category of pages a lot of UI niceties are only possible with scripting.

[littlecranky67]

Any other tracking methods are way more obvious, and way harder to implement for the advertising industry. We shouldn't think in black/white here - the more difficult it is to track a user, the less likely it is implemented. It is okay if 30% of tracking sites dissapear as the cost/value ratio don't work for them. We don't have to sit in silence and do nothing, just because we can't have the 100% privacy.

[matthewdgreen]

I do think there is a point here: any technical means to block tracking is going to be overrun by technical means to overcome the anti-tracking tech. There are simply too many dollars at stake for anything else to happen. If anti-tracking stops some players, that just means the industry will consolidate into a few large and well-resourced players.

While I am all in favor of continuing the technical battle against tracking, it’s time to recognize that the war will only be won with legislation.

[GCUMstlyHarmls]

https://nothingprivate.gkr.pw seems to (not) work fine in Firefox... I am running ublock-origin though, no other special things.

[Diti]

Same here, it’s not just you. Judging by the other comments, it only seems to “work” on Blink-based browsers.

[Kovah]

Also not working on Brave, without UBlock or similar extensions. Brave says it blocked one requests, probably that for fingerprinting.

[karl-j]

The site also fails to track on mobile Safari with ”Prevent Cross-Site Tracking” turned on.

[red_trumpet]

Same, they were "fooled" by a private window. I was recognized when just using a different Multi-Account Container[1] though.

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

[brookst]

It’s an interesting question: is it possible for JavaScript to be turing complete, able to read/write the DOM, and somehow prevent fingerprinting / tracking?

My gut says no, not possible.

Maybe we need a much lighter way to express logic for UI interactions. Declarative is nice, so maybe CSS grows?

But I don’t see how executing server-controlled JS could ever protect privacy.

[Enginerrrd]

I've always thought there should be a way to use the browser like a condom. It should obfuscate all the things that make a user uniquely identifiable. Mouse movement/clicks/typing cadence should be randomized and sanitized a bit. And no website should have any authority whatsoever to identify your extensions or other tabs, or even whether or not your tab is open. And it certainly shouldn't allow a website to overrule your right click functionality, or zoom, or other accessibility features.

[JSteph22]

The obfuscation makes you more easily identifiable.

[victorbjorklund]

I think their idea was that it would be in the browser everyone uses.

[Enginerrrd]

Exactly. My thought was this should be the default configuration in the browser.

[teo_zero]

How so?

[codyvoda]

Eldo Kim

you stand out when you obviously hide

[chii]

only if you are the only one doing the obfuscation.

It's why tor browser is set to a specific dimension (in terms of pixel size), have the same set of available fonts etc.

[6510]

I don't know what it is called but if you try to open a window from a timeOut it wont work. The user has to click on something then the click even grants the permission.

You could make something similar where fingerprint worthy information cant be posted or used to build an url. For example, you read the screen size then add it to an array. The array is "poisoned" and cant be posted anymore. If you use the screen size for anything those things and everything affected may stay readable but are poisoned too. New fingerprinting methods can be added as they are found. Complex calculations and downloads might make time temporarily into a sensitive value too.

[degamad]

In the old days, something similar to what you're calling "poisoned" was called "tainted" [0].

In those scenarios, tainted variables were ones which were read from untrusted sources, so could cause unexpected behaviour if made part of SQL strings, shell commands, or used to assemble html pages for users. Taint checking was a way of preventing potentially dangerous variables being sent to vulnerable places.

In your scenario, poisoned variables function similarly, but with "untrusted" and "vulnerable" being replaced with "secret" and "public" respectively. Variables read from privacy-compromising sources (e.g. screen size) become poisoned, and poisoned values can't be written to public locations like urls.

There's still some potential to leak information without using the poisoned variables directly, based on conditional behaviour - some variation on

    if posioned_screenwidth < poisoned_screenheight then load(mobile_css) else load(desktop_css)

is sufficient to leak some info about poisoned variables, without specifically building URLs with the information included.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taint_checking

[6510]

I mean everything inside the if statement becomes tainted.

Like opening a window requires a click (in the chain of events), load() wouldn't work in a tainted conditional.

[febusravenga]

Yes, it is.

Just create _strict_ content security profile, which doesn't allow any external requests (fetch) and only allow load of resources (css, image, whatever) from predefined manifest.

App cannot exfiltrate any data in that case.

You may add permissions mechanisms of course (local disk, some cloud user controls, etc).

That's a big challenge in standards and not sure if anyone is working on such strongly restricted profile for web/js.

[chongli]

It’s an interesting question: is it possible for JavaScript to be turing complete, able to read/write the DOM, and somehow prevent fingerprinting / tracking?

Yes, of course: restrict its network access. If JS can't phone home, it can't track you. This obviously lets you continue to write apps that play in a DOM sandbox (such as games) without network access.

You could also have an API whereby users can allow the JS application to connect to a server of the user's choosing. If that API works similarly to an open/save dialog (controlled entirely by the browser) then the app developer has no control over which servers the user connects to, thus cannot track the user unless they deliberately choose to connect to the developer's server.

This is of course how desktop apps worked back in the day. An FTP client couldn't track you. You could connect to whatever FTP server you wanted to. Only the server you chose to connect to has any ability to log your activity.

[adrr]

There's no point. If you diaable JS. Can track you other ways, fingerprint your dns packets like timestamp clock skew and other things. With IPV6 can assign you unique ip address for a dnslookup that can function like a cookie,

Don't want to be tracked. Don't go on the internet.

[HumanOstrich]

Websites can't fingerprint my dns packets by their clock skew, nor can they assign me a unique IP address for a dns lookup (what?). "Don't go on the internet" isn't a great starting point to improve things.

[adrr]

Used to fingerprint your TCP packets when i built a large neobank. Could easily tell if you're behind a proxy, falsifying your user agent via syn numbers, and more. We used it to detect bots but it could be easily be used to fingerprint individual users. DNS trick is already used for DNS based CDNs, you can just keep refining it down to more specificity. CDN edge for each individual user.

[waynesonfire]

Why does it have to be a technological solution? That's what the media industry tried to do with DRM and it failed. The solution is legislation. We need the equivalent of DMCA for our privacy. Make it illegal to fingerprint.

[chongli]

I’m completely unsold on legislation. Another headline that recently hit the top of HN is about how Apple flagrantly ignored a court order. The judge has recommended the case for criminal contempt prosecution [1].

The comments on the story are completely unconvinced that anyone at Apple will ever be convicted. Any fines for the company are almost guaranteed to be a slap on the wrist since they stand to lose more money by complying with the law.

I think the same could be said about anti-cookie/anti-tracking legislation. This is an industry with trillions of dollars at stake. Who is going to levy the trillions of dollars in fines to rein it in? No one.

With a technological solution at least users stand a chance. A 3rd party browser like Ladybird could implement it. Or even a browser extension with the right APIs. Technology empowers users. Legislation is the tool of those already in power.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43856795

[chii]

> The solution is legislation. We need the equivalent of DMCA for our privacy

and how does one know their privacy has been invaded? How does the user know to enforce the DMCA law for privacy?

I think the solution has to be technological. Just like encryption, we need some sort of standard to ensure all browsers are identical and unidentifiable (unless the user _chooses_ to be identified - like logging in). Tor-browser is on the right track.

[jenadine]

That'd be the GDPR

[cluckindan]

Which is only applicable in the EU

[deadbolt]

Just tried this with Brave and it didn't seem to work, assuming the site working means that it can remember me in an incognito browser. I gave the site a name, and then opened it in incognito (still using brave), and it acts as if I visited the site for the first time.

What am I supposed to witness?

[cptskippy]

It didn't work on Firefox mobile either... Why are all these browser companies breaking the web!

[gkbrk]

Doesn't work on Brave. It says to check it on private mode, but when I switch to private mode it just asks for my name again.

[IMTDb]

On me it had the opposite effect of what was intended:

I opened the website on non anonymous session safari: it asked my name. Then I opened another new non anonymous window on the same browser: it showed my name as expected. I then opened the same browser in incognito mode: it asked my name again. I then opened chrome (non anonymous) and again it asked my name.

Exactly what I expected to see; everything seems to be working as intended. Anonymization online seems to be working perfectly fine.

[FridgeSeal]

Also doesn’t work on iOS (for me).

[matheusmoreira]

They can track you just fine via CSS and countless other ways. They'll even fingerprint the subtle intricacies of your network stack.

What we need to do is turn the hoarding of personal information into a literal crime. They should be scrambling to forget all about us the second our business with them is concluded, not compiling dossiers on us as though they were clandestine intelligence agencies.

[emsign]

Web Browsers Must Be Removed

They run arbritrary code from sketchy servers called "websites" on people's hardware with way too many privileges. While free and open source standalone web applications exist that only use minimal JS code to access the same web resources with a much better user experience. Without trackers, without ads and third parties.

[Kiro]

I want a browser to be able to run arbitrary code. That's the whole point. I want to play a game or use a complex application in the browser without having to install anything.

[afavour]

It won’t happen because people don’t care enough.

I don’t mean to sound glib. But people derive a ton of utility from the web as it stands today. If they were asked if they supported the removal of web browsers they would absolutely say no. The privacy costs are worth the gains. If you want change you have to tackle that perception.

[hi_hi]

I think this is a bit overblown. Brave and Safari we're both private when I just tested. Chrome not so much, but thats expected.

[hobs]

I by default block JS on the web and only allow it for domains I accept. It's a tiny bit of work for a whole lot of safety.

[switch007]

I've tried this recently and I found it very difficult. Cloudflare bot protection is everywhere, other anti-scrape protections, many 'document' sites using JS to render with no fallback, basic forms requiring JS, authentication requiring JS, payments requiring JS etc

Not intending to sound snarky but do you just not use the web much? Or if you're adding allows all the time, what's the net gain?

[hobs]

I use the web fairly constantly and yeah, if I am visiting a new site and I want to see the content there's a 50/50 chance I have to press a button in noscript (like 2-3 clicks) - but when you setup your initial set (usually takes me about a week) you'd be surprised how few net new properties you set in a week - maybe 100 or less?

I also set temporary permissions for any site I dont think I will be spending a lot of time on because they might change what's running and I dont have any trust or insight into their process - so I might authorize that site 3-4x a year sometimes before I say it can stay.

[antihipocrat]

Unmodified server request headers contain enough information for tracking even if JS is disabled. If you're keen to modify http headers while browsing, then you could also modify any JS run on your system that snoops system information (or strip the info from any request sent to the server) and continue with JS enabled.

[myHNAccount123]

Works as advertised on Edge but not on safari

[kstrauser]

I can't get that site to work on Safari on my Mac, with JS enabled.

[sensanaty]

The more egregious and frankly disgusting one is https://fingerprint.com

IMO this service should straight up be made illegal. I love the tagline they have of supposedly "stopping fraud" or "bots", when it's obvious it's just privacy invasive BS that straight up shouldn't exist, least of all as an actual company with customers.

[alkonaut]

I have almost no hope that this is a matter that has a technical solution. The GDPR shows that law - even if not global, and even if not widely enforced - is pretty good at getting people to act. And most importantly, it will make the largest players the most afraid as they have the most to lose. And if just a handful of the largest players online are looking after peoples privacy then that is a huge win for privacy.

Doing what this demo shows, is clearly a violation of the GDPR if it works the way I assume it does (via fingerprints stored server side).

[xiaomai]

hmm, this didn't recognize me in a private window in either firefox or brave.