Panopticlick 3.0

panopticlick.eff.org/
>Does your blocker stop trackers that are included in the so-called “acceptable ads” whitelist?
>so-called “acceptable ads” whitelist
aay lmoa :^) ABP shills = BTFO

My result
>Yes! You have strong protection against Web tracking, though your software isn’t checking for Do Not Track policies.

I score a "No" on "Is your browser accepting Do Not Track commitments?". Anyone have a suggestion what this means and how to improve? Of course I'm searching the web on this as we speak but if someone knowledgeable on the subject is willing to share a though I'd like to know.

brave on android. massive top kek

The fact I had to enable JS on the site and a few other sites to actually have the test work is a good sign I think for my privacy.

I think they give an [x] No to that due to "ethics". There is really no reason to disable DNT regardless of whether the website claims that it will not track you.
But then again that flag doesn't mean too much anyway. In theory it was a good idea, in practice every piece of hit advertiser abused it. You will get a Yes if you disable DNT.

"No" seems to be the correct result.

Thanks!

Give it to me straight doc! How did I do?

Is there a plausible way to minimize the finger printing? Can I shed a few of those 20 bits of unique info?

only autistic nerds have js disabled. you are a minority, by disabling js completely your browser fingerprint becomes much more unique, making it that much easier to track you.

I don't believe that at all, prove it

>by disabling js completely your browser fingerprint becomes much more unique
Yes, but disabling JS is primarily to reduce the chance to get your system compromised, especially now that CPUs are discovered to have cardboard walls.

i agree, which is why i block unnecessary scripts with umatrix. i'd rather get tracked than get malware

use your brain dumbfuck

Nice response, you must be a really kewl guy. Absolutely stellar evidence. Go back to your anime club where you're the edgy computer expert.

guess who will have the more unique fingerprint: the 85% of users that have the default settings (normalfags are the majority, they don't change any settings usually), or the 15% that changed the settings. dumbfuck, default settings and blending into the crowd is the best defense

What the fellow is getting at, is that you're one of the very few people who have JS disabled, and this makes it very easy to track you.

Every browser has a unique fingerprint. WIth or without JS disabled. It's just as easy to track you, for someone who has an intention do do it, whether you have JS enabled or disabled. The advantage is that no one is going to mine buttcoins on your machine or inject malware-tier ads in your tab.
That being said, completely disable JS and you get a broken internet. So something like uMatrix can achieve a perfect balance.

>Every browser has a unique fingerprint.
With enough tweaking and sacrifices, this isn't true. It might not be worth it, however. It also depends on who's tracking you - not everyone will use every trick in the book.

>So something like uMatrix can achieve a perfect balance
If you use uMatrix then the website can track you based on which resources are blocked and which aren't :^)

hahe

Well, might as well find an extension for turning my digital fingerprints not-so-unique.

Recommendations, please?

about:config
resistfingerprinting