I don't think it'd be possible to define fingerprinting narrowly enough to not also outlaw perfectly normal and legitimate usecases.

I'm not even sure I'd want to make it narrow. I'd start with:

"Information gained via side-channel for the purpose of correlating individuals."

But you'd have to add an enormous amount of legalese after that to make it ironclad. They'll start arguing "this isn't a side-channel", "we're targeting bots, not individuals", etc. You'd have to define every word in that sentence very carefully.

I'd make it sweeping. "Individual" can mean "person", "bot", "suspected bot", "AI agent", "a piece of autonomous or non-autonomous software", basically anything. The "side-channel" definition might get trickier, but I'd rather legit use-cases get burned than privacy get burned.

The OP was downvoted, but I agree. I think fingerprinting should be in the same criminal category as an illegal wiretap.