Browser fingerprints are turning up in court cases now. Probably not wise of EFF to frame it as "covering your tracks". It's more like "closing your blinds".
https://www.theregister.com/2019/07/17/exmicrosoft_engineer_...
https://www.theregister.com/2019/07/17/exmicrosoft_engineer_...
Sometimes you just don’t want to have to try to win that argument.
"Move to strike that so-called "evidence," your honor. It is irrelevant and thus inadmissible, because "Cover Your Tracks" is the name of a website that tells users whether their computers appear unique to advertising companies. Not to mention that the EFF regularly files friend-of-the-court briefs with the Supreme Court and is a trustworthy nonprofit dedicated to keeping the internet safe and fair."
Juries are made of regular people. The overwhelming majority of households in the USA have broadband internet. Regular people understand that advertisers track internet users in order to sell more ads.
Also, scare-mongering and preying on someone's lack of familiarity with a website is only useful when there isn't someone else present to quickly explain it to them.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldma...
"Although it is physically impossible for the single guard to observe all the inmates' cells at once, the fact that the inmates cannot know when they are being watched means that they are motivated to act as though they are being watched at all times."
The parallels between the Internet/modern security state and the Panopticon design are obvious.