Poll Do you use Global Privacy Control?
- Thread starter Sampei.Nihira
- Start date
- Featured
General Privacy Discussions
35 Replies
4,589 Views
I use FF, and it's already on. I don't expect it to make any differences for me, though.
Hi,
You can also disable this setting if it is not useful to you:
Global Privacy Control | Firefox Help
I have been asked elsewhere whether websites honor GPC.
It depends on the website.
Just two examples:
Firefox.com (yes)
Microsoft.com (no)
Check a site
It depends on the website.
Just two examples:
Firefox.com (yes)
Microsoft.com (no)
Check a site
It is interesting to note that uBoL has the ability to send the SEC-GPC = 1 header via a DNR rule.
This is probably the only feature where uBoL surpasses uBo.
I have already written this DNR rule.
If any forum members want to study it and/or improve it, just ask.
Thank you.
Obviously, uBoL cannot inject js for the" navigator.globalPrivacyControl" API to the value true.
If Gorhill also equipped uBoL with script injection, the extension could enable GPC in every browser independently:
Will uBol facilitate using scriptlets in some form in the future · uBlockOrigin uBOL-home · Discussion #400
This is probably the only feature where uBoL surpasses uBo.
I have already written this DNR rule.
If any forum members want to study it and/or improve it, just ask.
Thank you.
Obviously, uBoL cannot inject js for the" navigator.globalPrivacyControl" API to the value true.
If Gorhill also equipped uBoL with script injection, the extension could enable GPC in every browser independently:
Will uBol facilitate using scriptlets in some form in the future · uBlockOrigin uBOL-home · Discussion #400
I just heard about it now. 
At least you admitted it, I had to click on the link to see what it was about, and considered it for future readingI just heard about it now.
that makes at least 2 of usI just heard about it now.
but based on some of the posts above I may already using it without know it... I clicked the URL and it immediately struck me as vague, which perhaps colored how I looked at it, ie, not enough to understand it. If it is amazing, I will probably hear more and look deep enough to understand it better. (maybe)At least you admitted it, I had to click on the link to see what it was about, and considered it for future reading
I clicked on the link several times trying to understand to no avail, but now I'm finally starting to understand it.At least you admitted it, I had to click on the link to see what it was about, and considered it for future reading
If I remember correctly, you're using Privacy Badger, and it's applying it automatically.that makes at least 2 of us
Yes, but it also enables DNT at the same time. It has a switch if the user wishes to disable them both.If I remember correctly, you're using Privacy Badger, and it's applying it automatically.
With this test, you can check whether GPC is enabled and the DNT status:
My screen shows DNT disabled and GPC enabled:
Do Not Track & Global Privacy Control
My screen shows DNT disabled and GPC enabled:
Do Not Track & Global Privacy Control
ThanksWith this test, you can check whether GPC is enabled and the DNT status:
My screen shows DNT disabled and GPC enabled:
Do Not Track & Global Privacy Control
View attachment 292459
With Brave it shows, true (I'm not sure of any setting I may have changed) and in Chrome it shows, undefined.
Thanks
GPC = (True + 1)
With uBoL, only Sec-GPC is enabled (not good):
With uBo or AG, only the API can be enabled (also not good).
Here is where I'm at with Brave, Shield set on Aggressively block tracker and ads. Otherwise, I need to do more research to understand all of this better
Last edited:
Here is where I'm at with Brave, Shield set on Aggressively block tracker and ads. Otherwise, I need to do more research to understand all of this better
View attachment 292471
Perfect.
Yuki2718 informed me that this rule exists in:
that it is possible to verify that GPC is disabled on some websites because it sets the “navigator.globalPrivacyControl” API to false.
It is interesting to note that a similar rule does NOT EXIST in:
There is probably a privacy reason (fingerprinting on the websites concerned), but I would like your opinion/guess as to why the GPC deactivation rule is not present in AdGuard Tracking Protection.
- Easy Privacy:
Code:
delta.com,geizhals.de,harborfreight.com,flyfrontier.com,acmemarkets.com,usaa.com,capezio.com,twitch.tv,spotify.com,tidal.com,deezer.com,pandora.com,qobuz.com,soundcloud.com,vimeo.com,x.com,twitter.com,eventbrite.com,wunderground.com,accuweather.com,formula1.com,lenscrafters.com,subway.com,ticketmaster.*,livewithkellyandmark.com,visible.com,porsche.com,uber.com,jdsports.com,engadget.com,yahoo.com,techcrunch.com,rivals.com,kkrt.com,crunchyroll.com,dnb.com,dnb.co.uk,weather.com,ubereats.com##+js(set, Navigator.prototype.globalPrivacyControl, false)
delta.com,geizhals.de,harborfreight.com,flyfrontier.com,acmemarkets.com,usaa.com,capezio.com,twitch.tv,spotify.com,tidal.com,deezer.com,pandora.com,qobuz.com,soundcloud.com,vimeo.com,x.com,twitter.com,eventbrite.com,wunderground.com,accuweather.com,formula1.com,lenscrafters.com,subway.com,ticketmaster.*,livewithkellyandmark.com,visible.com,porsche.com,uber.com,jdsports.com,engadget.com,yahoo.com,techcrunch.com,rivals.com,kkrt.com,crunchyroll.com,dnb.com,dnb.co.uk,weather.com,ubereats.com##+js(set, navigator.globalPrivacyControl, false)that it is possible to verify that GPC is disabled on some websites because it sets the “navigator.globalPrivacyControl” API to false.
It is interesting to note that a similar rule does NOT EXIST in:
- AdGuard Tracking Protection
There is probably a privacy reason (fingerprinting on the websites concerned), but I would like your opinion/guess as to why the GPC deactivation rule is not present in AdGuard Tracking Protection.
Hey @Sampei.Nihira, that's an interesting observation—thanks for sharing the details and that rule from EasyPrivacy. I'll give you my take on this, but keep in mind I'm basing it on how these filter lists generally work and common privacy practices. I'm not affiliated with the maintainers of either list, so this is more of an educated guess than insider knowledge.
First, a quick recap for context: Global Privacy Control (GPC) is essentially a browser header or API signal that tells sites "don't sell or share my data." The rule you mentioned in EasyPrivacy uses a scriptlet to forcibly set navigator.globalPrivacyControl to false on a bunch of specific sites (like Twitch, Spotify, Twitter/X, etc.). This overrides any user-enabled GPC, effectively disabling the signal on those domains.
Now, why might this rule exist in EasyPrivacy but not in AdGuard Tracking Protection? Your hunch about fingerprinting sounds spot-on to me, and it's probably the core reason. Here's why:
- Avoiding fingerprinting risks: If a filter list like EasyPrivacy is tweaking GPC only on certain sites, it could create a unique browser "fingerprint" for users who have that list enabled. Websites could detect this unusual behavior (e.g., GPC being false where it might otherwise be true) and use it to identify or track you more easily. EasyPrivacy might include this rule to prevent that kind of detection—by blending in with the crowd on those sites, where GPC isn't honored or could cause issues. It's a defensive move to reduce standout signals that trackers could exploit.
- Different philosophies or priorities: AdGuard's lists (like Tracking Protection) tend to focus more on broad blocking of trackers, ads, and telemetry without as much site-specific tweaking for things like GPC. They might not see the need for this rule if their testing shows it doesn't add meaningful privacy gains or if it could interfere with how sites handle privacy signals. AdGuard also emphasizes compatibility and user experience, so they could be avoiding rules that might break site functionality or cause unexpected behavior.
- Maintenance and scope differences: EasyPrivacy is part of the EFF's ecosystem and often dives deeper into anti-tracking specifics, including these kinds of overrides. AdGuard, while excellent, might handle GPC through other means (like their own extensions or browser integrations) rather than embedding it directly in the filter list. If a rule isn't causing widespread issues, they might skip it to keep things lean.
If you're testing this out, I'd suggest checking with tools like the one you linked (browserleaks.com) across different setups—maybe compare uBlock Origin with EasyPrivacy enabled vs. AdGuard alone. That could give more clues. If Yuki2718 or someone from the AdGuard team chimes in, they might have the definitive answer.
What do you think—does this align with what you've seen in your configs?
@Bot
The Browserleaks test obviously has no effect because it is not included in the EasyPrivacy exclusion.
What seems strange to me is that Yuki2718, who is a uBo contributor, knew about the exclusion rule.
And coincidentally, AG Tracking Protection is a list that is no longer present by default in uBo/uBoL.
The Browserleaks test obviously has no effect because it is not included in the EasyPrivacy exclusion.
What seems strange to me is that Yuki2718, who is a uBo contributor, knew about the exclusion rule.
And coincidentally, AG Tracking Protection is a list that is no longer present by default in uBo/uBoL.
Hey @Sampei.Nihira,
Yeah, you're spot on about the Browserleaks test—it's not one of the sites listed in that EasyPrivacy rule, so the scriptlet wouldn't trigger there. That means GPC (or related signals) would behave as per your browser/extension settings without any override. It's a good example of how these rules are deliberately site-specific; they're not blanket changes but targeted at domains where the maintainers see a need, likely based on observed tracking behaviors or compatibility issues.
As for Yuki2718 knowing about the rule, that doesn't surprise me at all. As a uBlock Origin contributor, they'd be deep into the weeds of filter lists like EasyPrivacy (which uBO supports natively). Contributors often monitor and discuss these kinds of tweaks in GitHub issues or forums to refine privacy protections. It's possible this rule came up in discussions around fingerprinting mitigation or site-specific quirks—uBO's community is pretty active in spotting and addressing those.
On the AdGuard Tracking Protection bit: You're right, it's no longer a default list in uBlock Origin or uBOL (it's been phased out in favor of others like AdGuard Base or just sticking with EasyPrivacy for tracking). From what I've seen in uBO's updates, this shift happened to streamline the default setup and reduce redundancy—EasyPrivacy covers a lot of similar ground but with a different focus (e.g., more emphasis on anti-fingerprinting rules like the one you mentioned). It might not be directly related to this GPC rule, but it could reflect broader decisions on which lists provide the best balance without overlapping too much. AdGuard still maintains their lists independently, of course, and they're solid for users who prefer them.
If you're experimenting, maybe try adding that EasyPrivacy rule manually to an AdGuard setup and see if it changes anything on those sites? Could be an interesting test. What are your thoughts—do you think the absence in AG is more about list philosophy or something else?
Recently browsing
Members who viewed this thread in the last 5 minutes
You may also like...
-
-
-
-
Serious Discussion Privacy vs Security — Where Do You Personally Draw the Line? -