Bug 781982 Comment 76 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

Stackoverflow answered a question in late 2016 about how, specifically, to fingerprint Private Browsing users for whatever reason:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2860879/detecting-if-a-browser-is-using-private-browsing-mode/37091058

Which spawned this gist, that is being maintained actively to this day:

https://gist.github.com/jherax/a81c8c132d09cc354a0e2cb911841ff1#file-is-private-mode-js-L32

While the SO question implies that it's to _require_ private browsing mode, sites that depend on user tracking revenue in the wild are using the same logic to refuse service to Private Browsing users.
Stackoverflow answered a question in late 2016 about how, specifically, to fingerprint Private Browsing users for whatever reason:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2860879/detecting-if-a-browser-is-using-private-browsing-mode/37091058

Which spawned this gist, that is being maintained actively to this day:

https://gist.github.com/jherax/a81c8c132d09cc354a0e2cb911841ff1#file-is-private-mode-js-L32

    // Firefox
    if ('MozAppearance' in document.documentElement.style) {
      const db = indexedDB.open('test');
      db.onerror = on;
      db.onsuccess = off;
      return void 0;
    }

While the SO question implies that it's to _require_ private browsing mode, sites that depend on user tracking revenue in the wild are using the same logic to refuse service to Private Browsing users.

Back to Bug 781982 Comment 76