I understand: Javascript is not safe. I know that. But most of the internet, except for onions, use javascript and it’s nearly impossible to use most of the Internet in web browsers without it. The problem is that if Fingerprint.com can reliable detect differences between users when javascript is on for Mullvad Browser and Tor Browser in certain operating systems, users should be aware. Most people would think Mullvad Browser in “safer” mode would not create a persistent per-computer hash of the browser that can be tracked across sessions.

Other users on privacyguides forums have commented on the exact same problem where threads are just completely deleted, even with valid questions.

Then this may be happening only with certain distributions or operating systems. It is definitely happening for me, I checked it over and over. “You have visited once.” I close Tor Browser, restart, come back to fingerprint.com. “You have visited twice.” I also did try this with safer. I did multiple tests. This impacts at least some operating systems or distributions. It may not impact Qubes. I didn’t test that, but I am sure it impacts at least some users.

All users don’t have the same fingerprint. Fingerprint.com is testing other things that Tor isn’t covering. So if they are testing canvas and other stuff that Tor protects, and 2 things that aren’t protected that give unique identifiers, they still create a unique hash. I did not test this using Tails or Qubes and it may not affect all operating systems.

They have different unique hashes per computer, so Tor Browser user on “Computer 1” has a unique hash and Tor Browser user on Computer 2 has a unique hash. I have read Mullvad’s documentation on their browser. Please re-read the original post.

They have different fingerprints PER COMPUTER without any plugins other than default of No Script. I tested this, it is not the same hash for every computer. It varies per computer and was persistent across sessions.

Nope, I’m looking for a reason to keep using it when I hate closed-source software! It’s the exact opposite!

I’ll admit to being one of those people. I’m always a bit biphobic of new bisexual people unless they end up fucking me.

US Corporations that receive secret court orders are required by law to violate their privacy policies. A US-based privacy policy and closed source software doesn’t really tell anyone much if the government is sliding into authoritarianism. There are lots of queries in LM Studio and small packages that get updated and data is sent and received during that, there is no proof that data about the user is not sent if the data is encrypted. That is the core of my stupid question: is the data to their servers encrypted?

Thank you! That’s what I’m saying. I don’t have the technical skill to check this out myself. Should I just delete LM Studio for now? It’s such a great program, but I think it may not be worth the risk.

Students that graduates with a liberal arts degree from an anti-speech state like Florida should be viewed as having the equivalent of a high school education.

Unless someone intends to stay in-state and thinks some mark of stupidity will help them with other stupid people, why not transfer at this point? What a waste of time and money for impacted students.

What’s next? Will the white trash jesus states demand Biblically correct flat earth astronomy textbooks and pass poorly written laws demanding that too?

Australia is always the testing ground for what they do later. Austalians will accept almost any horrible surveillance, so if they beta test there and Austalians won’t comply, they slow the roll out.

I don’t care if there is a package called gnome-age-verification distributed in my linux distro and would prefer it if it means fewer sites with facial biometric tests. If I have concerns about the age verification, then I should be able to type:

sudo dnf remove gnome-age-verification

California probably wants it in linux distros so that linux can’t be a justification for big tech still demanding Orwellian stuff in every website (ie “but what about the children who use linux? we need to protect them with Persona too!”)

But where would it stop? The hell version of this would be kernel-level-approved-AI-agent-checks, with an OS required to have an approved AI agent with a validated third party key that reports to the government with required telemetry and the kernel makes sure the OS won’t run without the approved AI and then makes illegal any scripts for unapproved kernel code modification. And post-Tornado cash, we know code is unfortunately not protected US speech.

fucking hilarious! I needed to laugh. Thanks @cm0002@infosec.pub this made my day

Are there are any worthy online newspapers specifically investigating this?

So use plausible.io. There are alternatives and there’s no excuse for this level of tech ignorance unless the non-profit is actively willing to fuck over potential users who don’t end up using the product.

Aren’t there analytics like plausible.io (i do not work for them or have any financial connection) that won’t sell financial data of interested users to data brokers?

Your Socratic questioning has led me to realize the futility of it all.

I edited this in response to your post. You are completely right!

cruelty to animals (isolation, pellets on ground that aren’t comfortable enough to make a bed. a hard hard floor under the pellets, day after day of misery and tedium and a form of sensory deprivation, having to use his own body as a pillow because of horrible cruelty) isn’t actually funny!