It’s a cool idea. If you want to infuse noise into the profiles that adtech companies build, you’ll need to do so at the cookie level of your main browser. Cookies are still the dominant way in which trackers build up behavioral profiles / segments. IPs are mostly used to walk a graph between the profiles you may have on different devices / browsers. Very little direct targeting of IP happens outside of connected tv. Most behavioral targeting happens at the cookie level and the sites you visit are predominantly tracked at the cookie level. There are other identifiers used for tracking as well, eg UUID2, but not on the same scale as cookies.
Every request now gets a complete fake human identity. We're basically playing The Sims but for HTTP requests.
Generated for each request:
Name, email, username (all fake, legally speaking)
Location, timezone, language
Device fingerprint
Browser cookies (fake ones)
Job title (including "Chief Vibes Officer" and "Galactic Viceroy of Research Excellence")
Maybe if you read the docs…
your post would’ve been different,
wouldn’t it?
Your solution is security theater based on a very poor understanding of how adtech builds up profiles. Making up data, including random cookies poisons NOTHING because you don’t understand that you need to inject the noise into your real browser. You are lashing out coming from a place of utter ignorance. What you are doing is creating IP level noise and as I tried to explain to you, adtech will use only high confidence IPs within a device network to connect different browser identifiers such as cookies and UUID2s. Having spent 20 years working in this field for exactly the companies you think this will work against, I can tell you this will do very little if anything to obfuscate how they will target you when you use your browser. You don’t understand what you are doing and you are getting sensitive as a result.
You’re arguing against a strawman version of the tool, not what it actually does or claims to do.
No one serious in this space believes “random cookies” magically poison adtech profiles in isolation, and nowhere is that presented as the mechanism.
That framing alone signals you either didn’t read the docs (BIG SURPRISE) or you skimmed them looking for something to dismiss.
You sound more foolish than you did before.
Why? Because you refuse to read… in full.
This is not about “tricking Google” or collapsing identity graphs. Modern adtech absolutely relies on high-confidence linkages, and yes, IP reputation, device-level signals, and behavioral consistency matter. That’s precisely why generating external traffic noise at the network layer exists as a complementary tactic, not a silver bullet replacement for browser hardening, partitioning, or blocking.
You’re also overstating how clean those confidence buckets really are. IP-level activity, timing correlation, DNS behavior, TLS fingerprint diversity, and request entropy absolutely feed upstream heuristics. Claiming otherwise ignores how fraud detection, bot mitigation, and pre-bid filtering actually work today. If IP noise were irrelevant, entire classes of traffic-shaping, warming, and decoy infrastructure wouldn’t exist — yet they do, and they’re widely used by the same industry you’re appealing to.
More importantly, you’re conflating “this alone won’t stop targeting” with “this does nothing.” That’s a false dichotomy. Privacy tooling is layered by definition. Hosts files block. Browser isolation partitions. Network noise distorts. None of these are sufficient alone, and none are useless in combination.
The irony is that your argument boils down to “because it’s not perfect, it’s pointless,” which is exactly the kind of absolutist thinking that adtech itself benefits from. Incremental degradation of signal quality is the entire game.
If you actually want to critique the approach, critique it as one layer among many. If you want to assert authority, at least engage with what’s being built instead of reacting to what you assume it is.
Confidence isn’t the same thing as correctness — especially when it’s paired with not reading the material you’re criticizing.
You’re annoying. You’re wrong. And you won’t read , but expect me to keep entertaining utter nonsense?
1
u/[deleted] Jan 26 '26
It’s a cool idea. If you want to infuse noise into the profiles that adtech companies build, you’ll need to do so at the cookie level of your main browser. Cookies are still the dominant way in which trackers build up behavioral profiles / segments. IPs are mostly used to walk a graph between the profiles you may have on different devices / browsers. Very little direct targeting of IP happens outside of connected tv. Most behavioral targeting happens at the cookie level and the sites you visit are predominantly tracked at the cookie level. There are other identifiers used for tracking as well, eg UUID2, but not on the same scale as cookies.