Translating pages is literally the only thing I use Chrome for. The built-in translation works way better than other browsers, even though they also use Google Translate.
Firefox does not use Google Translate and performs the translation locally, which works great for the most common languages out there. For the less common ones you still have to go to Google Translate, but IME it's definitely not worth changing the browser to Chrome over.
I don't really like firefox translate, despite having made the switch many years ago. For a long time it didnt have the (european) language of the country I live in. Now it does have it. Every time I want it to translate I have to manually find both languages in the insanely long dropdowns. It will not save it the way I want it, but impressively seems to manage to always save it in the other direction...
Ditching Chrome is something we need to teach everyone.
The DOJ is totally spineless and refuses to squash Google's absurd monopoly on the internet. We are literally the last line of defense, even though we really don't amount to much.
You don’t need a grassroots movement when other movements doing this exact thing already exist. In fact it is likely counterproductive. Mozilla Foundation is the organization you want to support, or EFF.
> Mozilla Foundation is the organization you want to support
Mozilla Foundation is rudderless. I'm convinced the leadership are all Google plants who are keeping the "antitrust litigation sponge" from doing anything damaging to Chrome.
Sorry but you're using a Google browser and Google translation service, when excellent alternatives to both exist. What did you expect regarding privacy?
A clueless person might not know any better, but you clearly do, and also you seemingly care. So why do you use Google all the same?
As uniform as possible is exactly the wrong way to go. It only takes one data point overlooked or newly discovered to make every person trying to look identical distinct. New fingerprinting techniques are being implemented all the time, so what's the point in taking chances when it's far easier to randomly change a browsers fingerprint for each site/connection making it much harder to track any one browser over time.
Except I don't want to be flagged as a bot when I'm just visiting some website in my browser. (I also don't want to be flagged as a bot when I'm scraping some website with a bot).
Every time I manually touched the "fingerprinting" about:config settings, my entropy went up. I used the EFF site to test: https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
AFAIK some of these options are there to be used by the Tor browser, which comes with strict configuration assumptions, and it doesn't translate well to normal Firefox usage. Especially if you change the window size on a non-standardized device. Mind you, the goal is not to block fingerprinting, but to not stand out. Safari on a macbook is probably harder to fingerprint than Firefox on your soldering iron.
However, judging by the fact that every data hungry website seemingly has a huge problem with VPN usage, I'd presume they are pretty effective and fingerprinting is not.
I've had good success with tracking tool tests and resistFingerprinting. Granted, I usually use it with uMatrix/NoScript most of the time which cuts down on the available data a lot and maybe makes it an unfair test.
One issue, I expect, is simply not enough people using resist fingerprinting to add variation to the mix. Since it's off by default, and only a small % of users use Firefox and an even tinier percentage use resistFingerprinting, unlike your example of Tor where probably most people on the tor network use the tor browser, it's likely that simply blocking things is a fingerprint all on its own.
The solution there would be to get more people using it :)
I will say one downside to using it is far more bot detection websites freaking out over generic information being returned to them, causing some sites to break (some of their settings breaking webgl games too due to low values). Using a different profile avoids this, or explicitly whitelisting certain sites in privacy.resistFingerprinting.exemptedDomains - obviously if a site is using a generic tracking service for bot detection, that kills a fair amount of the benefit of the flag, so a separate profile might be best. I wish firefox had a container option for this.
... and. not too sure what you mean by changing window size on a non-standardised device. They do try to ensure the window sizes are at standard intervals, as if they were fullscreened at typical widths to reduce fingerprinting, but surely that applies to using Tor too? I mean, people don't use Tor on dedicated monitors at standard sizes.
Oh, and a bit of followup. I tried the EFF cover your tracks on a Firefox profile with resist fingerprinting, and almost all the bits of identifying information came from the window size (which EFF considers "brittle") and the UA (I was testing in Firefox Nightly).
Apparently you need to add the hidden pref:
firefox.resistFingerprinting.letterboxing
Enabling letterboxing knocked off 5 bits of identifying information. Apparently my 1800px wide letterbox was still pretty identifiable, but, an improvement.
Setting a chrome user agent string using a user agent string manager dropped that one from 12ish bits to <4 bits. 'course, that has disadvantage of reducing firefox visibility online further, and probably being more recognisable with the other values (like mozilla in the webgl info). Using firefox stable for windows was <5bits, so probably best to use that if on linux. Although, it might conflict with the font list unless a windows font list was pulled in.
privacy.resistFingerprinting has potentially-unwanted side-effects, like wiping out most of your browser history (instead of the more sensible approach of just disabling purple links). I also recall something about it getting removed or nerfed, though I'm not sure whether that was a mere proposal.
It does not wipe your browser history. I can definitely attest to that since my generic JS active + resistFingerprinting profile has a history going back years. It does set your timezone to UTC in JS on websites. I've mostly encountered that when playing Wordle ;)
The browser should reasonably know what time zone you're in and what time zone you're reporting to the website and translate between them automatically.
Yeah, "should". Too bad it's unfeasible. As soon as you e.g. print the current date as part of a paragraph somewhere, the browser loses track of it, and the website can just read the element's content and parse it back.
what about duck duck go? We need a simple chart:
1. What browsers are good at resisting finger printing
2. tell for each browser, does it work on android ad ios and apple and windows and linux
3. what setting are needed to achieve this
for bonus points, is there no way to strip all headers on chrome on control it better?
Modern Safari is pretty damned good at randomizing fingerprints with Intelligent Tracking Prevention. With IOS 26 and MacOS 26, it's enabled in both private and non private browser windows (used to be only in private mode).
All "fingerprint" tests I've run have returned good results.
Surely this is true, but if you’re a fingerprinting company aren’t you making so much money violating the privacy of the masses that it’s not worth your time going after the tiny set of Freedom Nerds trying to evade you?
They aren't specifically going after you... they just try to create a unique hash from everything they can and by doing weird things to your system you are making a truly unique hash easier
You can change the header, but browser developers are not that dumb and they added properties like "navigator.platform" which do not change and immediately give you away. Consider also writing a browser extension to patch these properties. Also, I think that DRM module (widewine), that is bundled with browsers, also can report the actual software version. Sadly it is undocumented so I don't know what information it can provide, but I notice warnings from Firefox about attempts to use DRM on various sites like Yandex Market.
The article also mentions this, and suggests the UA is not a silver bullet. That said, they didn’t go into specifics. I’m assuming there are other details that correlate to particular browsers that will betray a false UA. Plus, having a UA that says Chrome while including an extension that’s exclusive to Safari (tor example) will not only contradict the UA, but it will also be a highly distinctive datapoint for fingerprinting, in and of itself.
