EFF has had a proof of concept online for quite a while https://panopticlick.eff.org/
And HN users are probably even more vulnerable since we will have customized our software making it stand out.
I'm sure there's a Google rep somewhere that will tell you that their "advertising ID" is better than the status quo on the web because the user can rotate it and, because it's reliable and easy for app devs to use, they are discouraged from being more nefarious and sneaky in tracking users.
This is all a bloody distraction from the point: it should not be an acceptable norm for this tracking to happen and it should be as hard as possible to pull off without informed user consent.
The degree to which platforms are defensive against it is a different issue to whether or not they actively encourage it by design... which shouldn't even be open to debate.
Our world is starting to looka lot like that of the Space Merchants..
First, our computing devices do not protect our privacy and security sufficiently. It's a general problem, not limited or even particularly affecting Android. And you deal with general problems differently than with incidental ones. You don't tell people in an epidemic to "just go see a doctor."
Second, I do more sensitive computing in the browser on my computer than I do on my phone. It's the bigger issue.
Finally, the way we dealt with Internet worms and viruses was not by strongly stating how unacceptable infecting other people's computers is. We patched our software, kept it up to date, and even completely changed its design. Later shamed Microsoft into doing the same.
https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
https://www.businessinsider.com/ifa-apples-iphone-tracking-i...
And the developer will pinky promise that they won’t abuse it....
The only acceptable answer is a legal/regulatory solution.
I hear this argument brought up a lot, that the only thing that can fix this is regulations. I've always come at this from the opposite direction -- regulatory solutions are nice, and I'm not against them, but they're less useful than technological solutions because my gut instinct is regulations only cover a) law-abiding entities (and usually only corporations at that), who are b) competent enough not to mess up compliance in the first place.
The perspective I lean on by default is that even if you have good regulations in place, the problem isn't really solved until there's a widespread technical solution. So for example, it might be nice to have a law banning MITM attacks, but HTTPS is the superior solution that we really want. When we pass laws criminalizing stuff like hacking or tracking children, my perspective is we're just trying to buy time and localize the damage to the slightly less frequented parts of the Android app store while we fix the crappy permissions models and sandboxing on our core platforms.
Is there a secondary aspect to the regulatory solutions that I'm missing? Something that would go much, much farther and be much stricter than laws like GDPR? I don't mean it as an argument, I'd just be curious to hear someone with the regulation>infrastructure perspective elaborate more on what they're thinking about when they say that, because it's a perspective I don't have much experience with.
I'm using a VPN + ublock origin + https everywhere + temporary containers + don't track me google + chameleon + canvas blocker + custom user.js (that disables e.g. webgl).
It's pretty good to address many tracking methods (e.g. cookies, IP) but fingerprinting is remarkably hard to prevent.
However, it comes with a fairly long list of downsides: less secure than Chrome, less secure than even Firefox it's based on because it's not updated as often and quickly, and you MITM yourself by default, and it's slow, it doesn't block ads... The price to pay is steep.
If you are a web developer or are familiar with web terminology like origins, domains, frames, XHR, etc on the web, and are willing to put in some time learning how to use it (15 mins for a seasoned web dev, maybe 30-60 mins otherwise) get uMatrix (https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix). It will change your life! If not, use ScriptBlock on Chrome or NoScript on Firefox. Block all scripts (and if using uMatrix, cookies, XHR, and frames) by default and whitelist as you go for sites you trust (or want to use bad enough to potentially open yourself up for tracking).
My suspicion is that fingerprinting by the core domain will actually get worse since your browser behaves so differently from stock browsers (which is after all the point of uMatrix :-) ). The majority of trackers tho will be third party (such as Google analytics). Very few sites roll their own trackers because it's hard to get right, and some great ones like GA is free. For those that do, I'm not too worried anyway, but that's certainly just a personal thing.
JavaScript developers should ask themselves if they want JS to become the popup of the 2010s: initially well-intentioned, shamelessly abused, universally loathed, and ultimately killed.
On the other hand, among HN users you'll probably find a higher percentage of those who block JS by default and allow it only on selected websites. Most of these fingerprinting methods (and most web abuse in general) depends on JS being turned on.
Unless you're using a vanilla Tor Browser, you will probably stand out. And if you are, 'tptacek will tell you how it's a bad idea for other reasons.
I'm not saying you can't finger print, and like you pointed out it's easier on desktop. I'm only pointing out that panopticlick needs some work to be more accurate.