I'd be happy to make that argument. It's circumstantial evidence at best, and would be a waste of time in a criminal trial.
"Move to strike that so-called "evidence," your honor. It is irrelevant and thus inadmissible, because "Cover Your Tracks" is the name of a website that tells users whether their computers appear unique to advertising companies. Not to mention that the EFF regularly files friend-of-the-court briefs with the Supreme Court and is a trustworthy nonprofit dedicated to keeping the internet safe and fair."
Juries are made of regular people. The overwhelming majority of households in the USA have broadband internet. Regular people understand that advertisers track internet users in order to sell more ads.
Also, scare-mongering and preying on someone's lack of familiarity with a website is only useful when there isn't someone else present to quickly explain it to them.
Take a look at the linked case. The prosecutor made a big deal of the fact that the defendant used a subversion server for version control. It was doubly evil because it was a subversion server in gasp Germany.
