Isn't this untrue due to browser fingerprinting? Unless the browser is like the Tor version of Firefox with no extensions installed or settings changed?
Similar privacy can be achieved through the combination of a VPN and a privacy-focused browser.
Isn't this untrue due to browser fingerprinting? Unless the browser is like the Tor version of Firefox with no extensions installed or settings changed?
It's not untrue, but it's not completely true either. It also depends on what you mean by privacy and to what extent you want to be private (and from whom).
It's not untrue, but it's not completely true either. It also depends on what you mean by privacy and to what extent you want to be private (and from whom).
Fingerprinting is a complex issue to begin with. They seem to imply just that with their closing words about a privacy focused browser. It should be noted that Mullvad also offers a Firefox port...
Fingerprinting is a complex issue to begin with.
Unless the browser is like the Tor version of Firefox with no extensions installed or settings changed?
They seem to imply just that with their closing words about a privacy focused browser. It should be noted that Mullvad also offers a Firefox port of their own which I think leans heavily on the Tor browser for some things.
Even if the browser is protected against fingerprinting (the if is doing a lot of heavy lifting, more on that later), as soon as you start installing extensions you will be adding to your fingerprint again.
Complete fingerprinting also means some websites will work in ways you don't expect. For example, timezones are part of a fingerprint so any browser that has fingerprint protection will need to spoof timezone data. This means that times websites show will be all over the place. Another thing the Mullvad browser does is adding gray borders around websites to change the viewport window. It's all understandable, but it makes for an overall poor browsing experience.
Even with all that, the result isn't huge. A quick test with the test the EFF provides shows that even using the Mullvad browser bumps my fingerprint from unique to "nearly-unique". I honestly don't expect that to be much different for other browsers with anti fingerprinting features.
So, from my perspective ,it all boils down to how much tracking protection you want, for what reasons and against who.
The latter is also important, Mullvad is right that just having a search engine proxy doesn't get you there. You still will click through to other websites who can do their own fingerprinting.
For casual browsing I think it is fair to argue that it is all a bit much for actually relative little gain. At least for most people and I want to stress the casual browsing context again.
FWIW, LibreWolf (another more-private fork of Firefox) goes to some lengths to protect against fingerprinting (and a bunch of other stuff). Of course, it's not bulletproof, but it does seem to...
FWIW, LibreWolf (another more-private fork of Firefox) goes to some lengths to protect against fingerprinting (and a bunch of other stuff). Of course, it's not bulletproof, but it does seem to work pretty well. On a whim, I just ran my day-to-day browser through the EFF CoverYourTracks test that creesch recommended (which used to be Panopticlick) ... and it tells me I'm pretty anonymous (my results were 1 in 700 browsers; rated as "strong protection against web tracking"). Pleasantly surprised there.
You need to look a bit closer to the results. When I test with a regular browser and ublock installed I already get that result, but that is not about fingerprinting specifically. Under that line...
You need to look a bit closer to the results. When I test with a regular browser and ublock installed I already get that result, but that is not about fingerprinting specifically. Under that line praising you is a bit more detailed breakdown highlighted in this screenshot.
I suspect that here Librewolf will give very similar results the Mullvad browser.
Actually... Though, in fairness, I can't definitively attribute it to Librewolf ... I do also run multiple privacy-focused plug-ins which may well be helping -- most notably, NoScript, which by...
Though, in fairness, I can't definitively attribute it to Librewolf ... I do also run multiple privacy-focused plug-ins which may well be helping -- most notably, NoScript, which by default, blocks javascript use, except for the specific sites, APIs, etc that I allow.
For what it's worth, Mozilla announced today that they're rolling out additional fingerprinting protections in Firefox. But Firefox is also a browser for the general public, not just...
For what it's worth, Mozilla announced today that they're rolling out additional fingerprinting protections in Firefox. But Firefox is also a browser for the general public, not just privacy-minded tech enthusiasts who are okay with sacrificing convenience for privacy. So I don't know if it'll be as effective as anti-fingerprinting found in more intensively privacy-focused browser.
Firefox has a hidden setting that makes fingerprinting you somewhat unreliable by randomizing things it reports to sites each day. Things such as time-zone, fonts, whether your system is in dark...
Firefox has a hidden setting that makes fingerprinting you somewhat unreliable by randomizing things it reports to sites each day. Things such as time-zone, fonts, whether your system is in dark or light mode for the defaults, and likely some other stuff.
Honestly, it makes browsing kind of frustrating. But for those who don't mind some pain in exchange for a bit more privacy, you can go to about:config and set privacy.resistFingerprinting to true.
Isn't this untrue due to browser fingerprinting? Unless the browser is like the Tor version of Firefox with no extensions installed or settings changed?
It's not untrue, but it's not completely true either. It also depends on what you mean by privacy and to what extent you want to be private (and from whom).
Fingerprinting is a complex issue to begin with.
They seem to imply just that with their closing words about a privacy focused browser. It should be noted that Mullvad also offers a Firefox port of their own which I think leans heavily on the Tor browser for some things.
Even if the browser is protected against fingerprinting (the if is doing a lot of heavy lifting, more on that later), as soon as you start installing extensions you will be adding to your fingerprint again.
Complete fingerprinting also means some websites will work in ways you don't expect. For example, timezones are part of a fingerprint so any browser that has fingerprint protection will need to spoof timezone data. This means that times websites show will be all over the place. Another thing the Mullvad browser does is adding gray borders around websites to change the viewport window. It's all understandable, but it makes for an overall poor browsing experience.
Even with all that, the result isn't huge. A quick test with the test the EFF provides shows that even using the Mullvad browser bumps my fingerprint from unique to "nearly-unique". I honestly don't expect that to be much different for other browsers with anti fingerprinting features.
So, from my perspective ,it all boils down to how much tracking protection you want, for what reasons and against who.
The latter is also important, Mullvad is right that just having a search engine proxy doesn't get you there. You still will click through to other websites who can do their own fingerprinting.
For casual browsing I think it is fair to argue that it is all a bit much for actually relative little gain. At least for most people and I want to stress the casual browsing context again.
FWIW, LibreWolf (another more-private fork of Firefox) goes to some lengths to protect against fingerprinting (and a bunch of other stuff). Of course, it's not bulletproof, but it does seem to work pretty well. On a whim, I just ran my day-to-day browser through the EFF CoverYourTracks test that creesch recommended (which used to be Panopticlick) ... and it tells me I'm pretty anonymous (my results were 1 in 700 browsers; rated as "strong protection against web tracking"). Pleasantly surprised there.
You need to look a bit closer to the results. When I test with a regular browser and ublock installed I already get that result, but that is not about fingerprinting specifically. Under that line praising you is a bit more detailed breakdown highlighted in this screenshot.
I suspect that here Librewolf will give very similar results the Mullvad browser.
Actually...
Though, in fairness, I can't definitively attribute it to Librewolf ... I do also run multiple privacy-focused plug-ins which may well be helping -- most notably, NoScript, which by default, blocks javascript use, except for the specific sites, APIs, etc that I allow.
For what it's worth, Mozilla announced today that they're rolling out additional fingerprinting protections in Firefox. But Firefox is also a browser for the general public, not just privacy-minded tech enthusiasts who are okay with sacrificing convenience for privacy. So I don't know if it'll be as effective as anti-fingerprinting found in more intensively privacy-focused browser.
Interesting point. I wonder whether one of the anti-fingerprinting Firefox extensions could help with (some of) this.
Firefox has a hidden setting that makes fingerprinting you somewhat unreliable by randomizing things it reports to sites each day. Things such as time-zone, fonts, whether your system is in dark or light mode for the defaults, and likely some other stuff.
Honestly, it makes browsing kind of frustrating. But for those who don't mind some pain in exchange for a bit more privacy, you can go to
about:configand setprivacy.resistFingerprintingto true.