Baseline visit v1 schema · facts legacy-derived · descriptive report

www.linkedin.com

https://www.linkedin.com/

Sep 7, 2026, 4:58 AM UTC

complete; derived from status and warnings

Scan report ready for www.linkedin.com: 53 recorded request rows.

Comparison Reportv1 schema · facts legacy-derived · descriptive report

Brave-list blocking off/on comparison

https://www.linkedin.com/ (opens in a new tab)
ShareDownloads the No blocking visit's request CSV, source report and correction context in a ZIP. Follows the evidence switcher below.PDF + evidence (opens in a new tab)Downloads a ZIP containing the PDF for every recorded visit, exact source JSON, correction context and file hashes. The scanner renders it on request.

What this actually means

linkedin.com recorded 13 fewer third-party requests in the visit configured for Brave-list blocking.

The visit with no blocking made 53 requests; the visit configured to apply Brave's ad-block engine and default Shields filter lists (a simulation in this scanner's browser, not a live Brave-browser visit) recorded 13 fewer third-party requests. The blocker directly stopped 11 requests; the remaining difference may include follow-on requests that never started once their sources were blocked, plus run-to-run variance.

4tracking-service entities
41cross-site requests
9third-party cookie records
3fingerprint-like patterns

Plain-Language Findings

What this visit means

Unfamiliar terms are defined in the glossary
playwright-chromium

Worth checking

Bottom line: this visit has review-worthy signals

The scan observed signals a non-expert should not have to decode from raw request tables.

The cards below translate the evidence into plain language; severity reflects fixed reference thresholds, not measured population percentiles. The request log, domain table, and methodology remain below for verification.

53 requests observed in one controlled visit.

Worth checking

16 requests matched Brave Shields filter lists

16 requests matched the default filter lists of Brave Shields, the ad and tracker blocker built into the Brave browser, while loading normally.

Computed with Brave's own ad-block engine and default filter lists in classification mode: matched requests were not blocked by the scanner and remain in this report's observed request counts. Matching shows what Shields would target on this visit's traffic; an actual Shields visit blocks these and also prevents their follow-on requests, so this number is neither a measured block count nor the total effect.

The hand-curated service catalog separately matched 33 request rows in this visit.Show matched requests

Nothing observed

Lower values observed across comparable metrics in the Brave-list blocking attempt

With the scanner configured to apply Brave's ad-block engine and default Shields filter lists (a simulation in this scanner's browser, not a live Brave-browser visit; application was not verified), this paired visit showed 13 fewer third-party requests, 9 fewer third-party cookies and 8 fewer tracking-related service requests.

Services only seen in the unblocked visit: Adobe, Google and Microsoft. The blocking visit's engine directly blocked 11 requests; the remaining difference may include follow-on requests that never started once their sources were blocked. A single paired comparison can also reflect run-to-run variance (ad rotation, caching, experiments), so treat this as an observed difference, not a measured blocking rate.

Signed per-metric differences between the two visits; nothing is summed across metrics.Show matched requests

Context

Tracking companies the privacy policy does not appear to name

Adobe and Google were sent requests during this visit, but the policy text matched none of the names this scan knows those companies by.

Policies often disclose vendor categories rather than company names, so an unnamed vendor is a transparency gap worth reviewing, not automatically a violation. Named in the policy: LinkedIn and Microsoft.

Policy at https://www.linkedin.com/legal/privacy-policy; 0 checkable statements matched; 2 of 4 observed tracking companies named in the policy.

Context

Catalogued service domains recorded responses during this visit

LinkedIn, Adobe and Google, plus 1 other appeared in the request log.

A catalog match identifies a maintainer-reviewed service/domain mapping; it does not establish why an individual request occurred, what it carried, or whether profiling happened. Functional catalog labels include social / advertising pixel, analytics / advertising and advertising. This scan could not identify 1 of the 7 third-party hosts recorded here, so it cannot say who operates it. That is a limit of identity coverage, not evidence about the site.

41 cross-site requests across 7 third-party hosts.Modest distinct tracking-service entities count.Show third-party requests

Worth checking

Requests were dispatched to catalogued major-platform domains

This visit dispatched requests to catalogued domains for Google, Microsoft and LinkedIn.

The domain matches identify services, not the requests' purpose, payload, or whether any profile linking occurred.

28 requests to these platforms.Show catalog-matched requests

Nothing observed

No Google Analytics observed

This visit did not contact Google Analytics.

Neither Google Analytics nor its remarketing sync was observed in this visit.

No google-analytics.com or googletagmanager.com requests.Show catalog-matched requests

Worth checking

Third-party cookies were present

9 third-party cookies showed up during the visit.

The scanner observed cookie metadata whose domain crossed the scanned site's registrable-domain boundary. This report does not retain cookie values or partition keys, so it does not establish whether a cookie was a persistent identifier or could recognize a visitor across sites.

18 cookies total in this report.Elevated third-party cookies count (at or above the 5 reference threshold).

Context

Input-monitoring signal involving a third-party script

Listener coverage that could observe typing-related input events was registered through call chains that included a third-party script.

This is a behavioral instrumentation signal from listener registration, stack-attributed script origins, and known-vendor requests: it shows the page was instrumented to observe interaction, not that anything was transmitted. Stack attribution records the script origins present in the bounded registration call chain; a cross-site origin in that chain does not by itself establish that the cross-site script registered the listener, because first-party code can register its own listeners through a helper served from elsewhere. A different registrable domain is also not by itself a different operator: sites commonly serve their own scripts from a separate asset domain, so the card says third party only when the catalog or reviewed ownership attributes an origin to another organization. On scanners that run the active keystroke-capture probe, actual transmission is tested separately (a synthetic value is typed, never real input, and no typed values are collected); treat this card as a review prompt rather than proof.

44 interaction-listener registrations with https://static.licdn.com/ in the registration call chain and 14 input-listener registrations with https://static.licdn.com/ in the registration call chain

Worth checking

Behavioral fingerprinting heuristics matched

3 behavioral heuristics matched: Canvas fingerprinting heuristic, Offline audio rendering heuristic and WebRTC peer-connection probing.

These heuristics look for behavior patterns such as canvas readback after drawing, repeated canvas font measurement, WebGL entropy reads, offline audio rendering, or WebRTC peer-connection setup. They are review prompts for this visit, not proof of cross-site identity tracking.

2 canvases matched; reads: canvas.toDataURL, 2 offline renders with audio.OfflineAudioContext.createDynamicsCompressor, audio.OfflineAudioContext.createOscillator and audio.OfflineAudioContext.startRendering and 2 peer connections with 2 data channels, 2 offers, and 2 local descriptions

Brave Shields Comparison

No blocking → Brave-list blocking delta

No blocking: 4,131msBrave-list blocking: 3,546ms
Some deltas are not comparable across these two visits and are not shown.
  • Other detector and causal-path deltas (each visit's own evidence still renders below): v1 never recorded detector versions, so fingerprinting and pixel deltas cannot be proven to come from matching instrumentation.
  • The Shields-number delta (each visit's own evidence still renders below): The two visits measured different Shields quantities (filter-list matches vs engine-blocked requests), which must never share a delta.
  • Fingerprinting deltas (each visit's own evidence still renders below): At least one visit did not complete the fingerprint measurement, so no exact cross-visit delta is shown.
  • Ad-pixel deltas (each visit's own evidence still renders below): At least one visit did not complete the pixel measurement, so no exact cross-visit delta is shown.
Requests-21No blocking: 53 · Brave-list blocking: 32
Third-party requests-13No blocking: 41 · Brave-list blocking: 28
Third-party domains-4No blocking: 7 · Brave-list blocking: 3
Cookies-12No blocking: 18 · Brave-list blocking: 6
Third-party cookies-9No blocking: 9 · Brave-list blocking: 0
Storage keys0No blocking: 0 · Brave-list blocking: 0
Catalog-matched requests-8No blocking: 33 · Brave-list blocking: 25

Every signed change is Brave-list blocking minus No blocking. A positive or negative direction is descriptive, not a judgment that the result is better or worse.

Cookie and storage count deltas include every observation. Name-level lists show only reviewed names; unreviewed names are not itemized because they can contain identifiers.

Largest per-domain request-count changes

www.linkedin.comfirst partyNo blocking: 11 · Brave-list blocking: 4Show No blocking requests · Show Brave-list blocking requests-7
*.demdex.netAdobe · analytics / advertisingNo blocking: 5 · Brave-list blocking: 0Show No blocking requests · Show Brave-list blocking requests-5
*.protechts.netunlabeled third partyNo blocking: 5 · Brave-list blocking: 0Show No blocking requests · Show Brave-list blocking requests-5
*.*.doubleclick.netGoogle · advertisingNo blocking: 2 · Brave-list blocking: 0Show No blocking requests · Show Brave-list blocking requests-2
*.bing.comMicrosoft · advertising / analyticsNo blocking: 1 · Brave-list blocking: 0Show No blocking requests · Show Brave-list blocking requests-1
*.linkedin.comfirst partyNo blocking: 1 · Brave-list blocking: 0Show No blocking requests · Show Brave-list blocking requests-1

Domains only with Brave-list blocking

No domain changes observed.

Domains only with No blocking

*.demdex.netAdobe · analytics / advertising · Show No blocking requests5
*.protechts.netunlabeled · Show No blocking requests5
*.*.doubleclick.netGoogle · advertising · Show No blocking requests2
*.bing.comMicrosoft · advertising / analytics · Show No blocking requests1
*.linkedin.comunlabeled · Show No blocking requests1

Visible cookie names only with Brave-list blocking

No visible cookie-name changes to show; privacy-filtered names are not itemized.

Visible cookie names only with No blocking

MUID.bing.comthird-party
test_cookie.doubleclick.netthird-party

Storage keys only with Brave-list blocking

No storage key changes observed.

Storage keys only with No blocking

No storage key changes observed.

Entities only with Brave-list blocking

No entity changes observed.

Entities only with No blocking

Adobe1 domain5
Google1 domain2
Microsoft1 domain1

Measurement limits

7 conditions affect how this evidence reads

This report

  • Brave-list blocking comparison runs should be collected under matched crawl conditions, and the blocking run is a simulation with Brave's engine and default lists in this scanner's browser, not a live Brave visit. Differences can still reflect timing, experiments, cache state, consent state, or bot detection.
  • The two visits ran in randomized order; the "Brave-list blocking" visit ran first.

Both visits

  • Each visit in this report is one automated, headless Chromium visit from a fixed en-US / UTC profile, with no scrolling, clicking, or consent interaction. Sites can behave differently for real users, browsers, regions, accounts, or network locations.
  • Counts are a lower bound: trackers that load only after interaction or consent are not observed; Service Workers are blocked, and Web Worker or WebSocket traffic may be incomplete. Service labels use a US-biased hand-curated catalog, so regional services may be under-labeled. Cookie and storage figures are an end-of-visit snapshot, with storage keys read from the top frame only.
  • Blocked a request that could not be verified as public: https://{label}.linkedin.com/{seg}/{seg}
  • Read the site's privacy policy (https://www.linkedin.com/legal/privacy-policy) and compared its text against this visit's observed behavior. Policy checks are an automated text match with the matched sentences quoted, not a legal reading.

Brave-list blocking visit only

  • Brave Shields block simulation was enabled; matching requests were aborted before loading and are not included in request totals.

This versioned report is currently retained in the public corpus. Follow the currently retained site history, repeat the same public route when it is available, or request a transparent evidence correction.

Report ID
20260907-408ffadde5220b3c744e5db7091da040
Site
www.linkedin.com
Latest visit
Schema
v1 schema · facts legacy-derived · descriptive report
Verify recorded provenance

Baseline visit

Started
Run quality
complete; derived from status and warnings
Scanner
playwright-chromium
Browser
151.0.7922.34
Redaction
not recorded by this schema
Provenance
Exact build and instrument digests were not recorded by this legacy schema.

Variant visit

Started
Run quality
complete; derived from status and warnings
Scanner
playwright-chromium
Browser
151.0.7922.34
Redaction
not recorded by this schema
Provenance
Exact build and instrument digests were not recorded by this legacy schema.

Recorded provenance is self-reported measurement metadata, not a cryptographic attestation. The public versioned report JSON contains the retained public evidence; see the methodology for interpretation and retention limits.

This report covers what the scanner measures, not everything a site can do. 16 browser surfaces are not instrumented at all (Every page except the one that was scanned; Anything that only loads after scrolling or interaction; Why a request happened, as a causal chain; and 13 others), 3 capabilities are declined by policy, and 3 are outside what any single visit can see. Their absence from this report is not evidence that they did not occur. Read the published coverage boundary.

Detector accuracy is unmeasured. No calibration study currently publishes a precision or recall for the detectors on this page, so a detector match here is a recorded observation, not a calibrated classification. How detector accuracy is measured.

Approved use boundary: This report is investigative evidence that requires independent corroboration. It is not a standalone legal determination and not the sole exhibit in a legal proceeding. Recorded in this project's release manifest on .