Corky, what good is a manifesto? Mozilla gets 95% of its funding from Google. Therefore, they are beholden to Google. Why do you want to use a browser that is beholden to Google? Plus, speed is not the only factor to consider for a browser. In addition, Firefox’s market share is somewhere around 3% and falling every day.
JD

Corky Wrote:
“Chrome has a dominant market share because of Google’s huge and effective distribution channels, NOT because it is a superior browser. Android is the most ubiquitous OS on the planet, and Chrome is the default browser in Android.”

To which I reply:
Chrome’s dominant market share in the context of this article refers to the DESKTOP browser market share which currently sits at just under 70%.

Would you care to explain that one?

To which I reply:
Chrome has a dominant market share because of Google’s huge and effective distribution channels, NOT because it is a superior browser. Android is the most ubiquitous OS on the planet, and Chrome is the default browser in Android.

Only a very small percentage of users are browser aware and computer sophisticated enough to discern significant differences between web browsers. The speed differences are so insignificant the human eye can barely detect a difference, if at all.

The vast majority of users will use Chrome simply because it’s there, and they don’t even know they have a choice. Mac users will use Safari and Windows users will use Edge, except for the small minority of enthusiasts and geeks, like us, who know the we have a choice, and actually have preferences about how our browsers work.

For me, Firefox ain’t perfect. But, I appreciate the Mozilla Foundation’s manifesto and support their efforts, in principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla

Doesn’t work Brian. It’s one of the browser extensions I tested. Installed in Firefox and then ran the scan/test through CoverYourTracks which still reported a “unique” fingerprint.

I tested every extension I could find at the time for all browsers, there were only three if I remember rightly, and none of them worked.

What about this:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/canvas-fingerprint-defender/

Nicely put Donald. Your approach pretty much reflects my own. I don’t tend to let privacy, or the lack thereof, overly influence my decisions. I figure my privacy went out the window the day I decided to connect to the Internet. And certainly when I started writing articles that are published on the web along with a photo and BIO. And yes, Edge is quite a deal faster than Firefox, I agree.

You have a point JD but I guess they are working on the KISS format. 17.45 bits of identifying information is about on par. Data transmitted includes details of the browser, right down to the font and including identifying installed extensions. Plus details of hardware such as CPU, screen size and resolution, etc. As you can imagine, 17 bits of always identical information is more than enough to create a unique fingerprint.

Anti-tracking extensions such as UBlock Origin and Privacy Badger prevent third-party tracking, usually triggered via cookies and/or ads, but cannot prevent tracking via browser fingerprinting. That’s why a randomized browser fingerprint should be the default in every browser. The two go hand-in-hand, one without the other is only half a job. Brave being the only browser that does a proper job.

Jim, yes, I understand that the site is showing different types of protection. My point is that the CoverYourTracks website is poorly designed.

There should be a clear table or index on what the various results are for fingerprinting and what they mean. Also, the results should be displayed in different colors: Unique = RED, Randomized =Green. Partial = Yellow. Or, put a traffic light next to the result. I.e., it should be easily apparent what the results mean. We should not need you to write an article explaining it (although we do appreciate you writing it). How many visitors their have already read your article?

The portion that shows identifying information (17.45 bits of identifying information for 5 different browsers for me) seems meaningless. Why the extreme detail down to 2 decimal places when it is exactly the same for 5 different browsers? And, again, there is no index. Is 17.45 high/low/average?

And the Top overall Result of Strong Protection / Not Protected are both in red! Why not Green/Red etc. Plus, since fingerprint output does not appear to have an effect on the outcome, (only tracking Ads and Invisible trackers seem to affect the result) the fingerprint section should be separated with a line or spaces or something.

Again, it is misleading because it is poorly designed. And, all these things could be easily fixed. I would think the hard part is creating the tests and such. The display color of the info should be extremely easy. Also, a quick index explaining the results is easy enough to create.

JD

We’re talking about two different types of protection JD. The first two results are based on the browser’s ability to block ads and third party trackers respectively. The third (bottom) result is based on the browser’s ability to prevent browser fingerprinting. The two are completely different and separate.

For a true comparison you need to test all browsers at default settings minus any extensions. In the case of Edge and Ungoogled Chromium, the UBlock Origin extension is what’s providing the protection against ads and tracking, not the browser itself

Browser fingerprinting is another matter altogether. Randomizing a fingerprint doesn’t prevent the data from being transmitted or collected, what it does is randomize that data so it is always different, thereby overcoming the “unique” character of the fingerprint.

When CoverYourTracks is testing the protection against browser fingerprinting, I’m assuming it is extracting the normal user data multiple times. If that data remains identical through each pass, the result is a “unique” fingerprint. If, however, that data changes with each pass, that identifies a “randomized” fingerprint.

Hope that clarifies.

Jim, that site is very confusing. In a previous post, I stated I tried 5 browsers:
Brave
MS Edge (with UBlock Origin)
Ungoogled Chromium (with UBlock Origin)
Chrome (Default settings)
Vivaldi (Default settings)

It stated I had strong protection against web tracking in all browsers except Chrome. Brave was the only one with “Randomized” fingerprint. The other 4 browsers had “Unique” fingerprint.

It appears that fingerprinting doesn’t have any effect on their overall protection. Chrome had “No” for the top 2 questions and it stated not protected for tracking, while other 4 browsers stated had strong protection. So, I don’t think the fingerprint outcome has any effect on thier overall result of strong protection, or not protected.

In addition, all 5 browsers gave the exact same 17.45 bits of identifying information! How can that be?

JD

I’ve already written about all this. Please read: https://davescomputertips.com/browser-privacy-fact-or-fiction/

Brian, I think you might be misinterpreting the results from CoverYourTracks. The message “Your browser has a unique fingerprint” means that your online activity can easily be tracked using that unique fingerprint. A “unique” fingerprint is bad, not good. What’s required for privacy is a random fingerprint that is not unique.

I need to update that my last post:

Brave said I had a “Randomized” fingerprint, other 4 browsers said I had a Unique fingerprint.

JD

I’m not sure how accurate that coveryourtracks.eff.org is. I tried it with 5 browsers:

Brave
MS Edge (with UBlock Origin)
Ungoogled Chromium (with UBlock Origin)
Chrome (Default settings)
Vivaldi (Default settings)

Brave/MS Edge/Ungoogled Chromium/Vivaldi results:
Blocking tracking ads? Yes
Blocking invisible trackers? Yes
Protecting you from fingerprinting? Your browser has a unique fingerprint
at least 17.45 bits of identifying information.

Chrome results:
Blocking tracking ads? No
Blocking invisible trackers? No
Protecting you from fingerprinting? Your browser has a unique fingerprint
at least 17.45 bits of identifying information.

In other words, other than Chrome giving me No & No on Blocking tracking ads & invisible trackers, all the results were the same! Even said Chrome was giving a unique fingerprint and all 5 browsers had 17.45 bits of identifying info.

JD

Yes, I’ve mentioned the CoverYourTracks website in previous articles.

What browser are you using Brian? My guess would be Brave… yes?

Of course, this would require a bit more effort, but it’s kind of scary that it’s possible.
https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/

This is mine:
Our tests indicate that you have strong protection against Web tracking.
Is your browser:
Blocking tracking ads? Yes
Blocking invisible trackers? Yes
Protecting you from fingerprinting? Your browser has a unique fingerprint

All a VPN does is hide the user’s real IP address. A VPN does not prevent the collection of other data about the browser, it’s extensions, and users’ hardware, and it does not prevent browser fingerprinting.

VPNs are good for circumventing geo-blocking and obfuscating one’s location but they add little in the way of privacy.