pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.02982 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · 💻 cs.CR

SoK: After Decades of Web Tracker Detection, What's Next?

Wolf Rieder , Philip Raschke , Thomas Cory , Christian Ren\'e Sechting , Aditya Kumar , Axel K\"upper This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 18:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR
keywords web trackingtracker detectionfilter listssystematic reviewSoKweb privacyreproducibilitytaxonomy
0
0 comments X

The pith

A systematic review of decades of web tracker detection research yields a new taxonomy, trend analysis, and list of open gaps.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper performs the largest meta-review to date of web tracker detection by screening 832 papers down to 59 primary studies. It organizes existing detectors into a taxonomy, tracks how methods have evolved over time, flags reproducibility problems through a limited re-implementation check, and lists concrete research gaps plus practical recommendations. A sympathetic reader would care because everyday web users rely on imperfect filter lists and blockers whose shortcomings this work aims to overcome. If the synthesis holds, future detector design can avoid repeating known limitations and target the uncovered challenges more directly.

Core claim

By conducting a systematic literature review of web tracker detection literature and synthesizing 59 primary studies, the authors establish a taxonomy of detection approaches, document observable trends in the field, identify open research gaps, issue recommendations for future work, and demonstrate through a reproducibility assessment that many prior studies contain validity issues that undermine their conclusions.

What carries the argument

The taxonomy of web tracker detectors constructed from the 59 primary studies, which classifies approaches and supports trend evaluation and gap identification.

If this is right

  • Detector development should shift focus to the open gaps such as advanced obfuscation and dynamic tracking techniques.
  • Reproducibility practices must improve because the limited re-evaluation already exposed validity problems in earlier work.
  • Future research can use the proposed taxonomy as a common reference frame to compare new detectors against prior ones.
  • Recommendations for evaluation metrics and data sets can reduce duplication and increase comparability across studies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The taxonomy could serve as a practical checklist for developers building or auditing privacy tools such as browser extensions.
  • Addressing the reproducibility issues may require shared test beds or open data sets that later papers could adopt.
  • Connections to adjacent privacy areas like fingerprinting or consent management could be explored using the same systematization approach.

Load-bearing premise

The inclusion and exclusion criteria applied to the 832-paper corpus produced an unbiased and representative set of 59 primary studies that fully capture the state of web tracker detection research.

What would settle it

Discovery of a large body of tracker-detection papers or methods that the inclusion criteria excluded, or a successful large-scale re-implementation showing that the reported trends and gaps are artifacts of the selected sample.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.02982 by Aditya Kumar, Axel K\"upper, Christian Ren\'e Sechting, Philip Raschke, Thomas Cory, Wolf Rieder.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Various stakeholders participate throughout the life cycle of a detector. Whereas the left side focuses on detector research and development, the view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Adapted PRISMA flow diagram [ view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The detector taxonomy comprising ten categories with their view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Web tracking is an omnipresent phenomenon in today's web, affecting users in their day-to-day lives. Filter lists and blockers were invented to detect trackers and to protect users. Due to limitations of said tools, researchers developed web tracker detectors to replace them. No review constructed a universal perspective and classification of web tracker detectors until now. Past reviews focused either on the field as a whole or on web tracking techniques. In this SoK paper, we present the most comprehensive meta-science study on web tracker detection by systematizing and synthesizing the available knowledge. We conduct a systematic review, resulting in 59 primary and 16 supplementary studies out of a corpus of 832 papers. Based on these findings we suggest a taxonomy, observe and evaluate trends, propose open research gaps, and recommendations with which we aim to lay the foundations for future web tracker detection research. In addition, we conduct a limited reproducibility study to assess the validity of past studies and highlight emerging problems in this field.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents an SoK on web tracker detection, claiming to conduct the most comprehensive meta-science study to date. It performs a systematic literature review on a corpus of 832 papers, selecting 59 primary and 16 supplementary studies, from which it derives a taxonomy of detectors, observes and evaluates trends, identifies open research gaps, and provides recommendations for future work. It also includes a limited reproducibility study to assess the validity of prior research.

Significance. If the review corpus is representative, this work offers a valuable synthesis of decades of web tracker detection research, providing a taxonomy and actionable recommendations that could guide future studies in web privacy and security. The limited reproducibility study is a strength, highlighting practical issues in the field and adding empirical grounding to the meta-analysis.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Systematic Review Methodology): The search strategy, databases used, exact search strings (including variants like 'ad detection' or 'privacy measurement'), and precise inclusion/exclusion criteria applied to reduce 832 papers to 59 primary studies are described only at a high level. This detail is load-bearing for the central claim of presenting the 'most comprehensive' study, as incomplete specification prevents assessment of potential selection bias or coverage gaps.
  2. [Reproducibility Study] Reproducibility Study section: The criteria for selecting the subset of studies for the limited reproducibility assessment, along with the exact experimental protocol and metrics used to evaluate validity, are not specified. This undermines the ability to interpret the highlighted 'emerging problems' and assess the study's contribution to evaluating past work.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Taxonomy section] The taxonomy presentation could benefit from a clearer summary table or diagram early in the relevant section to help readers map the 59 studies to categories.
  2. [Trends section] Some trend observations reference specific papers without explicit cross-references to the primary study list or supplementary materials, which would improve traceability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and positive assessment of our SoK. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional details where needed.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Systematic Review Methodology): The search strategy, databases used, exact search strings (including variants like 'ad detection' or 'privacy measurement'), and precise inclusion/exclusion criteria applied to reduce 832 papers to 59 primary studies are described only at a high level. This detail is load-bearing for the central claim of presenting the 'most comprehensive' study, as incomplete specification prevents assessment of potential selection bias or coverage gaps.

    Authors: We agree that the methodology in Section 3 is presented at a high level and that greater specificity would strengthen the transparency of our systematic review and support the claim of comprehensiveness. In the revised manuscript we will expand Section 3 (or add an appendix) with the exact search strings employed, the complete list of databases queried, and the full inclusion/exclusion criteria used to arrive at the 59 primary studies. This will enable readers to assess coverage and potential selection bias. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Reproducibility Study] Reproducibility Study section: The criteria for selecting the subset of studies for the limited reproducibility assessment, along with the exact experimental protocol and metrics used to evaluate validity, are not specified. This undermines the ability to interpret the highlighted 'emerging problems' and assess the study's contribution to evaluating past work.

    Authors: We concur that the Reproducibility Study section would benefit from explicit description of the selection criteria for the subset, the detailed experimental protocol, and the metrics for assessing validity. We will revise this section to include these elements, thereby clarifying how the subset was chosen and how validity was evaluated. This will better contextualize the emerging problems identified and the contribution of the reproducibility analysis. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: synthesis rests on external literature corpus

full rationale

The paper conducts a systematic literature review by applying search and inclusion criteria to an external corpus of 832 papers, yielding 59 primary studies whose content is then used to derive the taxonomy, trends, gaps, and recommendations. No step reduces by construction to the paper's own outputs or fitted parameters; the derivation chain is one-way from reviewed external sources to synthesized claims. No self-definitional loops, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the described process.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard systematic-review practices and the existing body of 832 papers; no free parameters, new physical entities, or ad-hoc axioms beyond the review methodology itself.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard systematic literature review methodology (search, screening, selection) produces an unbiased representation of the field.
    Invoked in the description of how the 59 primary studies were chosen from 832 papers.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5482 in / 1142 out tokens · 52419 ms · 2026-05-08T18:09:56.261068+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

239 extracted references · 239 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Web Never Forgets: Persistent Tracking Mechanisms in the Wild,

    G. Acar, C. Eubank, S. Englehardt, M. Juarez, A. Narayanan, and C. Diaz, “The Web Never Forgets: Persistent Tracking Mechanisms in the Wild,” inACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), 2014, p. 674–689

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    FPDetective: Dusting the Web for Fingerprinters,

    G. Acar, M. Juarez, N. Nikiforakis, C. Diaz, S. G ¨urses, F. Piessens, and B. Preneel, “FPDetective: Dusting the Web for Fingerprinters,” inACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), 2013, p. 1129–1140

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Adblock,

    AdBlock, “Adblock,” [Online]. Available: https://getadblock.com, accessed: Jul. 25, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Adblock Plus,

    Adblock Plus, “Adblock Plus,” [Online]. Available: https://adbloc kplus.org/en/, accessed: Jul. 25, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Apophanies or Epiphanies? How Crawlers Impact Our Understanding of the Web,

    S. S. Ahmad, M. D. Dar, M. F. Zaffar, N. Vallina-Rodriguez, and R. Nithyanand, “Apophanies or Epiphanies? How Crawlers Impact Our Understanding of the Web,” inThe ACM Web Conference (WWW), 2020, p. 271–280

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    An Empirical Analysis of Web Storage and Its Applications to Web Tracking,

    Z. Ahmad, S. Casarin, and S. Calzavara, “An Empirical Analysis of Web Storage and Its Applications to Web Tracking,”ACM Transac- tions on the Web (TWEB), vol. 18, no. 1, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Beyond Cookie Monster Amnesia: Real World Persistent Online Tracking,

    N. M. Al-Fannah, W. Li, and C. J. Mitchell, “Beyond Cookie Monster Amnesia: Real World Persistent Online Tracking,” inInter- national Conference on Information Security (ISC), 2018, pp. 481– 501

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Alexa Top Sites Ranking,

    Alexa, “Alexa Top Sites Ranking,” [Online]. Available: https://web. archive.org/web/20221126132843/https://support.alexa.com/hc/en-u s/articles/4410503838999, accessed: Aug. 04, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Errors, Misunder- standings, and Attacks: Analyzing the Crowdsourcing Process of Ad-blocking Systems,

    M. Alrizah, S. Zhu, X. Xing, and G. Wang, “Errors, Misunder- standings, and Attacks: Analyzing the Crowdsourcing Process of Ad-blocking Systems,” inACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC), 2019, p. 230–244

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Detecting Web Bugs with Bugnosis: Privacy Advocacy through Education,

    A. Alsaid and D. Martin, “Detecting Web Bugs with Bugnosis: Privacy Advocacy through Education,” inInternational Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PET), 2003, pp. 13–26

    work page 2003

  11. [11]

    Blocking Tracking JavaScript at the Function Granularity,

    A. H. Amjad, S. Munir, Z. Shafiq, and M. A. Gulzar, “Blocking Tracking JavaScript at the Function Granularity,” inACM Confer- ence on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), 2024, p. 2177–2191

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    TrackerSift: Untangling Mixed Tracking and Functional Web Re- sources,

    A. H. Amjad, D. Saleem, M. A. Gulzar, Z. Shafiq, and F. Zaffar, “TrackerSift: Untangling Mixed Tracking and Functional Web Re- sources,” inACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC), 2021, pp. 569–576

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    FP-Fed: Privacy-Preserving Federated Detection of Browser Fingerprinting,

    M. Annamalai, I. Bilogrevic, and E. De Cristofaro, “FP-Fed: Privacy-Preserving Federated Detection of Browser Fingerprinting,” inNetwork and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS), 2024

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Safari Browser,

    Apple Inc., “Safari Browser,” [Online]. Available: https://www.appl e.com/de/safari/, accessed: Jul. 30, 2025

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/, accessed: Jul

    arXiv, “arxiv,” [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/, accessed: Jul. 27, 2025

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    ACM Digital Library,

    Association for Computing Machinery, “ACM Digital Library,” [On- line]. Available: https://dl.acm.org, accessed: Jul. 27, 2025

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Artifact Review and Badging – Version 1.0 (not current),

    ——, “Artifact Review and Badging – Version 1.0 (not current),” [Online]. Available: https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/arti fact-review-badging, accessed: Jul. 27, 2025

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Flash Cookies and Privacy II: Now with HTML5 and ETag Respawning,

    M. D. Ayenson, D. J. Wambach, A. Soltani, N. Good, and C. J. Hoofnagle, “Flash Cookies and Privacy II: Now with HTML5 and ETag Respawning,”SSRN Electronic Journal, 2011

    work page 2011

  19. [19]

    FP-Radar: Longitudi- nal Measurement and Early Detection of Browser Fingerprinting,

    P. N. Bahrami, U. Iqbal, and Z. Shafiq, “FP-Radar: Longitudi- nal Measurement and Early Detection of Browser Fingerprinting,” Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETS), pp. 557–577, 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility,

    M. Baker, “1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility,”Nature, vol. 533, no. 7604, pp. 452–454, 2016

    work page 2016

  21. [21]

    Diffusion of User Tracking Data in the Online Advertising Ecosystem,

    A. Bashir and C. Wilson, “Diffusion of User Tracking Data in the Online Advertising Ecosystem,”Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETS), pp. 85–103, 2018

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    A Promising Direction for Web Tracking Countermeasures,

    J. Bau, J. R. Mayer, H. S. Paskov, and J. C. Mitchell, “A Promising Direction for Web Tracking Countermeasures,”Workshop on Web 2.0 Security and Privacy (W2SP), 2013

    work page 2013

  23. [23]

    Leveraging Machine Learning to Improve Unwanted Resource Fil- tering,

    S. Bhagavatula, C. Dunn, C. Kanich, M. Gupta, and B. Ziebart, “Leveraging Machine Learning to Improve Unwanted Resource Fil- tering,” inWorkshop on Artificial Intelligent and Security Workshop (AISec), 2014, p. 95–102

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    Blockzilla,

    Blockzilla, “Blockzilla,” [Online]. Available: https://github.com/a nnon79/Blockzilla/blob/master/Blockzilla.txt, accessed: Aug. 13, 2025

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    FP- Tracer: Fine-Grained Browser Fingerprinting Detection via Taint- Tracking and Entropy-Based Thresholds,

    S. Boussaha, L. Hock, M. Bermejo, R. C. Rumin, A. C. Rumin, D. Klein, M. Johns, L. Compagna, D. Antonioli, and T. Barber, “FP- Tracer: Fine-Grained Browser Fingerprinting Detection via Taint- Tracking and Entropy-Based Thresholds,”Privacy Enhancing Tech- nologies Symposium (PETS), pp. 540–560, 2024

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Fingerprinting defenses 2.0,

    Brave Privacy Team, “Fingerprinting defenses 2.0,” [Online]. Avail- able: https://brave.com/privacy-updates/4-fingerprinting-defenses-2 .0/, accessed: Jul. 30, 2025

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    What Manifest V3 means for Brave Shields and the use of extensions in the Brave browser,

    ——, “What Manifest V3 means for Brave Shields and the use of extensions in the Brave browser,” [Online]. Available: https://brave. com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/, accessed: Aug. 14, 2025

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Brave Browser,

    Brave Software Inc., “Brave Browser,” [Online]. Available: https: //brave.com, accessed: Jul. 25, 2025

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    A Survey on Web Tracking: Mechanisms, Implications, and Defenses,

    T. Bujlow, V . Carela-Espa ˜nol, J. Sol ´e-Pareta, and P. Barlet-Ros, “A Survey on Web Tracking: Mechanisms, Implications, and Defenses,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 105, no. 8, pp. 1476–1510, 2017

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    byte-learn,

    byte-learn, “byte-learn,” [Online]. Available: https://github.com/byt e-learn/byte-learn, accessed: Nov. 14, 2025

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    RF Data,

    Byte-learn, “RF Data,” [Online]. Available: https://drive.google.com /file/d/1LoddVxdk7v30CClMx3QoEyfZuGt8aQ-q/view?usp=share link, accessed: Nov. 14, 2025

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    AST-GNN: A Graph Neural Network for Web Tracking Detection,

    E. Campeny-Roig, I. Castell-Uroz, and P. Barlet-Ros, “AST-GNN: A Graph Neural Network for Web Tracking Detection,” inGraph Neural Networking Workshop (GNNet), 2024, p. 27–32

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    (Cross-)Browser Fingerprinting via OS and Hardware Level Features,

    Y . Cao, S. Li, and E. Wijmans, “(Cross-)Browser Fingerprinting via OS and Hardware Level Features,” inNetwork and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS), 2017

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    OmniCrawl: Comprehensive Measurement of Web Tracking With Real Desktop and Mobile Browsers,

    D. Cassel, S.-C. Lin, A. Buraggina, W. Wang, A. Zhang, L. Bauer, H.-C. Hsiao, L. Jia, and T. Libert, “OmniCrawl: Comprehensive Measurement of Web Tracking With Real Desktop and Mobile Browsers,”Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETS), pp. 227–252, 2022

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    Early detection of new web tracking methods across 1.5 million sites,

    I. Castell-Uroz, ´O. S. de Mingo, and P. Barlet-Ros, “Early detection of new web tracking methods across 1.5 million sites,”Computer Communications, vol. 210, pp. 273–284, 2023

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    ASTrack: Automatic Detection and Removal of Web Tracking Code with Minimal Func- tionality Loss,

    I. Castell-Uroz, K. Fukuda, and P. Barlet-Ros, “ASTrack: Automatic Detection and Removal of Web Tracking Code with Minimal Func- tionality Loss,” inIEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), 2023, pp. 1–10

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    URL-based Web Tracking Detection Using Deep Learning,

    I. Castell-Uroz, T. Poissonnier, P. Manneback, and P. Barlet-Ros, “URL-based Web Tracking Detection Using Deep Learning,” in International Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM), 2020, pp. 1–5

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    TrackSign: Guided Web Tracking Discovery,

    I. Castell-Uroz, J. Sole-Pareta, and P. Barlet-Ros, “TrackSign: Guided Web Tracking Discovery,” inIEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), 2021, pp. 1–10

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Hide and Seek: Revisiting DNS-based User Tracking,

    D. Chang, J. Q. Chen, Z. Li, and X. Li, “Hide and Seek: Revisiting DNS-based User Tracking,” inEuropean Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P), 2022, pp. 188–205

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    Detecting filter list evasion with event-loop-turn granularity javascript signatures,

    Q. Chen, P. Snyder, B. Livshits, and A. Kapravelos, “Detecting filter list evasion with event-loop-turn granularity javascript signatures,” in IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P), 2021, pp. 1715– 1729

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    Using Function Call Sequence for Browser Fingerprint- ing Detection,

    D. Cheng, “Using Function Call Sequence for Browser Fingerprint- ing Detection,” inInternational Conference on Computer Science and Management Technology (ICCSMT), 2022, pp. 104–109

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    Threats to Online Advertising and Countermeasures: A Technical Survey,

    M. Y .-K. Chua, G. O. M. Yee, Y . X. Gu, and C.-H. Lung, “Threats to Online Advertising and Countermeasures: A Technical Survey,” Digital Threats, vol. 1, no. 2, 2020

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    Narrowing the focus and broadening horizons: Com- plementary roles for systematic and nonsystematic reviews,

    D. A. Cook, “Narrowing the focus and broadening horizons: Com- plementary roles for systematic and nonsystematic reviews,”Ad- vances in Health Sciences Education, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 391–395, 2008

    work page 2008

  44. [44]

    Inferring Tracker-Advertiser Relationships in the Online Advertising Ecosystem using Header Bidding,

    J. Cook, R. Nithyanand, and Z. Shafiq, “Inferring Tracker-Advertiser Relationships in the Online Advertising Ecosystem using Header Bidding,”Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETS), pp. 65–82, 2020

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    Hybrid and lightweight detection of third party tracking: Design, implementation, and evaluation,

    F. Cozza, A. Guarino, F. Isernia, D. Malandrino, A. Rapuano, R. Schiavone, and R. Zaccagnino, “Hybrid and lightweight detection of third party tracking: Design, implementation, and evaluation,” Computer Networks, vol. 167, p. 106993, 2020

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    A machine learning approach for detecting CNAME cloaking-based tracking on the Web,

    H. Dao and K. Fukuda, “A machine learning approach for detecting CNAME cloaking-based tracking on the Web,” inIEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2020, pp. 1–6

    work page 2020

  47. [47]

    Cname cloaking-based track- ing on the web: Characterization, detection, and protection,

    H. Dao, J. Mazel, and K. Fukuda, “Cname cloaking-based track- ing on the web: Characterization, detection, and protection,”IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 3873–3888, 2021

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    Reproducibility and Replicability of Web Mea- surement Studies,

    N. Demir, M. Große-Kampmann, T. Urban, C. Wressnegger, T. Holz, and N. Pohlmann, “Reproducibility and Replicability of Web Mea- surement Studies,” inThe ACM Web Conference (WWW), 2022, p. 533–544

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    Disconnect,

    Disconnect, “Disconnect,” [Online]. Available: https://disconnect.m e/trackerprotection, accessed: Jul. 25, 2025

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    The Menlo Report: Ethical Principles Guiding Information and Communication Technology Research,

    D. K. Dittrich and E. Kenneally, “The Menlo Report: Ethical Principles Guiding Information and Communication Technology Research,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, Cyber Security Division, Technical Report DHS–CSD–CP–12–0001, 2012

    work page 2012

  51. [51]

    Duumviri-NDSS25,

    dlgroupuoft, “Duumviri-NDSS25,” [Online]. Available: https://gith ub.com/dlgroupuoft/Duumviri-NDSS25/tree/main, accessed: Nov. 14, 2025

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    Threat modeling,

    V . Drake, “Threat modeling,” [Online]. Available: https://owasp.or g/www-community/Threat Modeling, accessed: Jul. 29, 2025

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    Detecting Third-Party User Trackers with Cookie Files,

    V . Dudykevych and V . Nechypor, “Detecting Third-Party User Trackers with Cookie Files,” inInternational Scientific-Practical Conference Problems of Infocommunications Science and Technol- ogy (PIC S&T), 2016, pp. 78–80

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    EasyList,

    EasyList, “EasyList,” [Online]. Available: https://easylist.to/easylist /easylist.txt, accessed: Jul. 25, 2025

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    EasyPrivacy,

    EasyPrivacy, “EasyPrivacy,” [Online]. Available: https://easylist.to/ easylist/easyprivacy.txt, accessed: Jul. 25, 2025

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    How Unique Is Your Web Browser?

    P. Eckersley, “How Unique Is Your Web Browser?” inInternational Conference on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETS), 2010, p. 1–18

    work page 2010

  57. [57]

    Client-side and Server-side Tracking on Meta: Effectiveness and Accuracy,

    A. El fraihi, N. Amieur, W. Rudametkin, and O. Goga, “Client-side and Server-side Tracking on Meta: Effectiveness and Accuracy,” Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETS), pp. 24–44, 2024

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    Privacy Badger,

    Electronic Frontier Foundation, “Privacy Badger,” [Online]. Avail- able: https://privacybadger.org/, accessed: Jul. 25, 2025

    work page 2025

  59. [59]

    Available: https://www.scopus.com/s earch/form.uri, accessed: Jul

    Elsevier, “Scopus,” [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/s earch/form.uri, accessed: Jul. 27, 2025

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    No boundaries: Exfiltra- tion of personal data by session-replay scripts,

    S. Englehardt, G. Acar, and A. Narayanan, “No boundaries: Exfiltra- tion of personal data by session-replay scripts,” [Online]. Available: https://blog.citp.princeton.edu/2017/11/15/no-boundaries-exfiltratio n-of-personal-data-by-session-replay-scripts/, published: Nov. 15, 2017; Accessed: Aug. 7, 2025

    work page 2017

  61. [61]

    Online Tracking: A 1-million-site Measurement and Analysis,

    S. Englehardt and A. Narayanan, “Online Tracking: A 1-million-site Measurement and Analysis,” inACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), 2016, p. 1388–1401

    work page 2016

  62. [62]

    Web Tracking – A Literature Review on the State of Research,

    T. Ermakova, B. Fabian, B. Bender, and K. Klimek, “Web Tracking – A Literature Review on the State of Research,” inHawaii Inter- national Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 2018, pp. 1–10

    work page 2018

  63. [63]

    Systematizing Systematization of Knowledge,

    D. Evans, “Systematizing Systematization of Knowledge,” [Online]. Available: https://oaklandsok.github.io/, accessed: Apr. 10, 2025

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    Searching two or more databases decreased the risk of missing relevant studies: a metaresearch study,

    H. Ewald, I. Klerings, G. Wagner, T. L. Heise, J. M. Stratil, S. K. Lhachimi, L. G. Hemkens, G. Gartlehner, S. Armijo-Olivo, and B. Nussbaumer-Streit, “Searching two or more databases decreased the risk of missing relevant studies: a metaresearch study,”Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (JCE), vol. 149, pp. 154–164, 2022

    work page 2022

  65. [65]

    FPGuard: Detection and Prevention of Browser Fingerprinting,

    A. FaizKhademi, M. Zulkernine, and K. Weldemariam, “FPGuard: Detection and Prevention of Browser Fingerprinting,” inIFIP An- nual Conference on Data and Applications Security and Privacy (DBSec), 2015, pp. 293–308

    work page 2015

  66. [66]

    Fanboy’s Annoyance List,

    Fanboy’s Annoyance List, “Fanboy’s Annoyance List,” [Online]. Available: https://easylist.to/easylist/fanboy- annoyance.txt, accessed: Aug. 13, 2025

    work page 2025

  67. [67]

    Fanboy’s Social Blocking List,

    Fanboy’s Social Blocking List, “Fanboy’s Social Blocking List,” [Online]. Available: https://easylist.to/easylist/fanboy-social.txt, accessed: Aug. 13, 2025

    work page 2025

  68. [68]

    Increasing User’s Privacy Control through Flexible Web Bug Detection,

    F. Fonseca, R. Pinto, and W. Meira, “Increasing User’s Privacy Control through Flexible Web Bug Detection,” inLatin American Web Congress (LA-WEB), 2005, pp. 205–212

    work page 2005

  69. [69]

    Missed by Filter Lists: Detecting Unknown Third-Party Trackers with Invisible Pixels,

    I. Fouad, N. Bielova, A. Legout, and N. Sarafijanovic-Djukic, “Missed by Filter Lists: Detecting Unknown Third-Party Trackers with Invisible Pixels,”Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETS), pp. 499 – 518, 2020

    work page 2020

  70. [70]

    The Devil is in the Details: Detection, Measurement and Lawfulness of Server-Side Tracking on the Web,

    I. Fouad, C. Santos, and P. Laperdrix, “The Devil is in the Details: Detection, Measurement and Lawfulness of Server-Side Tracking on the Web,”Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETS), pp. 450–465, 2024

    work page 2024

  71. [71]

    Some common statistical methods for assessing rater agreement in radiological studies,

    M. Geijer, M. B ˚ath, and C. Wessman, “Some common statistical methods for assessing rater agreement in radiological studies,”Acta Radiologica, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 675–683, 2025

    work page 2025

  72. [72]

    Gerlach, C

    B. Gerlach, C. Untucht, and A. Stefan,Electronic Lab Notebooks and Experimental Design Assistants. Springer Cham, 2020, pp. 257–275

    work page 2020

  73. [73]

    Read Between the Lines: Detect- ing Tracking JavaScript with Bytecode Classification,

    M. Ghasemisharif and J. Polakis, “Read Between the Lines: Detect- ing Tracking JavaScript with Bytecode Classification,” inACM Con- ference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), 2023, p. 3475–3489

    work page 2023

  74. [74]

    Ghostery,

    Ghostery, “Ghostery,” [Online]. Available: https://www.ghostery.c om, accessed: Jul. 25, 2025

    work page 2025

  75. [75]

    WhoTracks.Me,

    ——, “WhoTracks.Me,” [Online]. Available: https://www.ghostery .com/whotracksme/trackers, accessed: Aug. 26, 2025

    work page 2025

  76. [76]

    Network Analysis of Third Party Tracking: User Exposure to Tracking Cookies through Search,

    R. Gomer, E. M. Rodrigues, N. Milic-Frayling, and M. Schraefel, “Network Analysis of Third Party Tracking: User Exposure to Tracking Cookies through Search,” inIEEE/WIC International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technologies (WI-IAT), vol. 1, 2013, pp. 549–556

    work page 2013

  77. [77]

    Chrome Browser,

    Google LLC, “Chrome Browser,” [Online]. Available: https://www. google.com/chrome/, accessed: Jul. 25, 2025

    work page 2025

  78. [78]

    Google Scholar,

    ——, “Google Scholar,” [Online]. Available: https://scholar.google .com, accessed: Jul. 25, 2025

    work page 2025

  79. [79]

    Puppeteer,

    ——, “Puppeteer,” [Online]. Available: https://pptr.dev/, accessed: Aug. 14, 2025

    work page 2025

  80. [80]

    The Chrome User Experience Report,

    ——, “The Chrome User Experience Report,” [Online]. Available: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/crux/, accessed: Aug. 06, 2025

    work page 2025

Showing first 80 references.