A better solution would be to make webgl, webgpu and (especially) webrtc have some sort of prompt before they can be in any way used in that fashion, but this will absolutely destroy web ux Windows Vista style.
replyAnd then the gatekeepers like Cloudflare will say "please hit accept in order to verify your browser and access this site".
replyYou mean the "Accept Cookies" banner that has become a complete joke? Pass
replyI think he means browser permissions, for example when browsers want notify or record your mic theres a permission check something similar for webgl.
replyFun Fact: When Cookies were introduced into Netscape, you got a browser permission prompt. Then browser vendors set it to allow by default.
replyAnd then legislation required those consent boxes back, so everyone built their own, instead of demanding that the default should be changed back.
This is actually illegal under GDPR.
replyIt's about explicitly deciding to allow certain capabilities on a per-website basis. No major browser allows defense-in-depth via fine-grained website permissions.
replyEven simply changing the user agent was sabotaged at Firefox, and choosing one user agent per domain is wishful thinking.
Fingerprinting is just an implementation, banning it will just drive these companies to invent new tricks. That's why the GDPR doesn't specify any technical tracking methods, whether you're using cookies or fingerprinting or a camera drone looking at the user's screen, tracking without consent or good reason is banned.
replyI doubt politicians care much about fingerprinting, though. They're more afraid of actual businesses getting attacked by bots than they are about Linux users with weird setups not being able to access some websites.
a. Accept All
replyb. Accept Only Necessary Fingerprinting