<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: stavrop</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=stavrop</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 06:29:56 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=stavrop" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by stavrop in "Fingerprints are the new cookies"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Right, and that wording is why fingerprinting doesn't get around it. The EDPB's Guidelines 2/2023 on the technical scope of Art. 5(3) (final version adopted October 2024) say that when a site's JavaScript instructs the browser to send information back, that is "gaining access" just like reading a cookie (paras 32-34). WP29 had already said in Opinion 9/2014 that device fingerprinting is in scope.<p>So a canvas/font/WebGL fingerprint used for tracking needs the same consent as a tracking cookie. The guidelines even suggest passively collected protocol signals can fall under it (para 43), though that's where it gets argued.<p>The weak point is enforcement. A cookie shows up in devtools and in every cookie-scanner audit. A fingerprinting script looks like any other analytics JS, so it's much harder for a DPA to spot and prove.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 07:11:49 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50052471</link><dc:creator>stavrop</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50052471</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50052471</guid></item></channel></rss>