That’s one of the issues I have with Unman’s solution. I explained it earlier but since there is a lot of noise in this topic I think it’s worth saying it again.
Unman’s solution is undocumented. It’s not mentioned in neither qubes os and whonix docs, not even in the pages/sections that are about qubes-whonix.
And I’ve previously quoted a text twice in this topic, from the whonix docs where they say that qubes-whonix protection against mouse movement fingeprinting is broken and weak. And that they will work on fixing it. But they said that a long time ago (more than a year), and there has been no informational updates since then.
So since you say, to trust Whonix docs/devs who specialize in anonymity/privacy, and because Unman’s undocumented solution contradicts whonix docs, that is why I have replied with the questions and requests for more information.
But I also know it’s hard questions to answer because with a solution like the one Unman has given, the only thing that can be done really is have it tested against a mouse movement fingerprinter, over a very large sample, spread over weeks/months of data.
Because unlike Kloak which is programmed to do specific obfuscations at a constant rate (reliable and known data), the unintended delays which Qubes have be default are harder to measure, rely on being constant, and they are random. That is probably why Unman says it’s up to us to test it. And I have explained it’s not so simple to test.
So in summary, Unman and I are both right the way i see it. It might appear we’re in a conflict with each other, but we’re actually part of the same team, meeting each other in the middle where the issue appears.
I think the difference between him and me is that he seems to think it’s a simple test to make when he says “it’s not much to ask”. And he doesn’t seem to be able to put himself in the shoes of a user (not expert) who has to some degree trust the expert’s reasoning/explanation. And since his solution is undocumented and contradicts whonix’s docs, that becomes very difficult.