I wonder if this took into account GPU render-time fingerprinting? The minute timing differences in how you render an image are still used to identify you.
Recently did a WebGPU project and noticed Firefox polls GPU status on a 100ms timer, so you can't really use it for such as far as I can tell.
That said, Claude figured out that while Canvas copying of a loaded JPEG was out due to fingerprint resistance, it could copy it via WebGPU, so yeah...
I understand that the HN crowd is composed of many different people with radically different interests and opinions, so an "average HN opinion" would be mostly meaningless, but still...
I find it mildly amusing that HN both loudly complains about bots scraping their websites AND is very interested in user privacy.
The conflicting part is that user privacy automatically means that you cede any control over how exactly does the user accesses your resource. Whether they use a web browser or an automated scraper. Any attempt to analyze requests to tie different requests made by the same actor together automatically means privacy violation.
I don't have a good answer to this dilemma yet, I just thought that this is a curious observation and wanted to share.
On the face, yes, that is true. And it's what confused me about your post at first. Because I didn't see the connect between scraping and user privacy.
And yes, on the face, being able to determine whether a bot or a person is looking at your site is essentially trying to confirm some private information about the consumer.
But I think the dichotomy can be settled through the habits of consumption. Bots are impartial, greedy, and fast. They can consume resources faster than a human can. This could be a problem when trying to provide those same resources to humans.
Not to mention, the bots doing the scraping are doing so to put your content in their regurgitation machine. Which has been ruled as "not a copyright violation" due to "reasons". Whereas, a person who attempts to use your content without permission is liable for violating your copyright.
Now, if the position is "human users" have privacy, then we would need that critical piece of information before we decide whether to grant privacy to an entity. Also, the user is free to not use the resource if the rule is that we're allowed to determine whether they are human and the user doesn't want to share that information. As long as we don't pursue that information beyond what we've stated we're going to use it for, we can be said to be respecting the users' privacy. Also, if we don't disclose that information to other users or companies, we could still be said to be respecting the users' privacy, because information shared in confidence with us remains that way.
Scrapers and bots put a ton of effort into anti-fingerprinting. Ordinary users? Zero.
Users care mainly about cross-site fingerprinting. Bot-fighting is concerned with single-site fingerprinting.
The good answer to your dilemma is x402: https://x402.org/ Nothing in life is free; you've been paying with your attention via ads, which is where the urge to fingerprint comes from (targeting). Agentic AI is rapidly killing web ads as a revenue source. It's time to stop kicking the can on micropayments.
Also, this article commits the common mistake of assuming that privacy means hiding in the largest possible cohort. That's bogus. You can also get privacy by belonging to many one-member cohorts -- i.e. fingerprint uniquely but differently to each site you visit and differently to a single site over longer timespans (like weeks). This is precisely what Brave's "farbling" does; farbled users have very unique fingerprints and yet they can't be tracked.
see f.e. "Highlight" (Resolved value of the Highlight system colour keyword, as RRGGBB), which has bajillion different values for android - and I can't find the most common ones for linux
Ran their fingerprinting test.
CSS Colours SelectedItem and SelectedItemText was the only problematic one, and uniquely identified me to less than 0.0054 of Linux users.
Why?
Oh, damn. I thought this was about the uniqueness of human fingerprints or similar.
I wonder if this took into account GPU render-time fingerprinting? The minute timing differences in how you render an image are still used to identify you.
If you can run compute shader code, the fingerprinting and side channel possibilities become very rich. [1] is one paper among many on this topic.
[1]: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3634737.3656283
Recently did a WebGPU project and noticed Firefox polls GPU status on a 100ms timer, so you can't really use it for such as far as I can tell.
That said, Claude figured out that while Canvas copying of a loaded JPEG was out due to fingerprint resistance, it could copy it via WebGPU, so yeah...
I read they're not releasing the details - that seems good (for the public). Hopefully they're releasing it to privacy-friendly browser makers.
I understand that the HN crowd is composed of many different people with radically different interests and opinions, so an "average HN opinion" would be mostly meaningless, but still...
I find it mildly amusing that HN both loudly complains about bots scraping their websites AND is very interested in user privacy.
The conflicting part is that user privacy automatically means that you cede any control over how exactly does the user accesses your resource. Whether they use a web browser or an automated scraper. Any attempt to analyze requests to tie different requests made by the same actor together automatically means privacy violation.
I don't have a good answer to this dilemma yet, I just thought that this is a curious observation and wanted to share.
On the face, yes, that is true. And it's what confused me about your post at first. Because I didn't see the connect between scraping and user privacy.
And yes, on the face, being able to determine whether a bot or a person is looking at your site is essentially trying to confirm some private information about the consumer.
But I think the dichotomy can be settled through the habits of consumption. Bots are impartial, greedy, and fast. They can consume resources faster than a human can. This could be a problem when trying to provide those same resources to humans.
Not to mention, the bots doing the scraping are doing so to put your content in their regurgitation machine. Which has been ruled as "not a copyright violation" due to "reasons". Whereas, a person who attempts to use your content without permission is liable for violating your copyright.
Now, if the position is "human users" have privacy, then we would need that critical piece of information before we decide whether to grant privacy to an entity. Also, the user is free to not use the resource if the rule is that we're allowed to determine whether they are human and the user doesn't want to share that information. As long as we don't pursue that information beyond what we've stated we're going to use it for, we can be said to be respecting the users' privacy. Also, if we don't disclose that information to other users or companies, we could still be said to be respecting the users' privacy, because information shared in confidence with us remains that way.
Um, no.
Scrapers and bots put a ton of effort into anti-fingerprinting. Ordinary users? Zero.
Users care mainly about cross-site fingerprinting. Bot-fighting is concerned with single-site fingerprinting.
The good answer to your dilemma is x402: https://x402.org/ Nothing in life is free; you've been paying with your attention via ads, which is where the urge to fingerprint comes from (targeting). Agentic AI is rapidly killing web ads as a revenue source. It's time to stop kicking the can on micropayments.
Also, this article commits the common mistake of assuming that privacy means hiding in the largest possible cohort. That's bogus. You can also get privacy by belonging to many one-member cohorts -- i.e. fingerprint uniquely but differently to each site you visit and differently to a single site over longer timespans (like weeks). This is precisely what Brave's "farbling" does; farbled users have very unique fingerprints and yet they can't be tracked.
funny how enabling letterboxing causes me to be in "under 100 samples" category
btw, is pixelRatio controllable somehow? how do I set it to 1, most common value?
wtf is "Maximum touch points" ?
> The digitiser's touch-point count, uncollapsed.
my laptop does not have touch screen, why am I not at 0?
interesting how Windows and Mac are almost at 100% of DRM enabled, meanwhile linux is only at 33%
anyone knows why is that?
I wish I could select what OS to sort values for
see f.e. "Highlight" (Resolved value of the Highlight system colour keyword, as RRGGBB), which has bajillion different values for android - and I can't find the most common ones for linux