<story><title>Panopticlick</title><url>https://panopticlick.eff.org/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>danShumway</author><text>Interesting counterpoint to people who claim that turning off Javascript is just another data point. I use Firefox with a decent amount of tracking protection turned on. With Javascript, I leak about 16 bits of identifying information. Without, I leak about 7.&lt;p&gt;You want to take that with a grain of salt, because I don&amp;#x27;t think Panopticlick is a perfect tool to measure this stuff. For one thing, I suspect that Panopticlick is highly influenced by the people who visit it -- being posted on HN probably means there are more data points for me to hide in than usual.&lt;p&gt;For the other thing, there are measurements that Panopticlick doesn&amp;#x27;t include, and there&amp;#x27;s no way for Panopticlick to track disinformation and false data. For example, you could still get my screen size without Javascript via just CSS. Are most tracking sites doing that? No, it would be a massive pain to do, and it would force you to ship giant CSS blobs everywhere. But it&amp;#x27;s still possible.&lt;p&gt;But, this does still strengthen my conviction that turning off Javascript by default _probably_ helps avoid tracking on most sites, and it&amp;#x27;s surprisingly feasible to do. A lot of content-sites work without Javascript.&lt;p&gt;I recommend UMatrix if you want to go down that route, since it lets you create very precise exceptions relatively easily when you need them.</text></comment>
<story><title>Panopticlick</title><url>https://panopticlick.eff.org/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>glandium</author><text>&amp;quot;Does your browser unblock 3rd parties that promise to honor Do Not Track?&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;No&amp;quot; comes with a red X like if it&amp;#x27;s a bad thing, but... Is it?</text></comment>