7 ms·

True, it does hand control to browser vendors. But I think I'd rather my browser have control over the information used to personalize ads served to me rather t

True, it does hand control to browser vendors. But I think I'd rather my browser have control over the information used to personalize ads served to me rather than that information being available to advertisers directly. Google is taking steps to stop excessive fingerprinting[1][2], so it's not like they're just adding new systems for ad personalization without closing off the existing, more intrusive ones. [1]: https://blog.chromium.org/2019/05/improving-privacy-and-security-on-web.html https://blog.chromium.org/2019/05/improving-privacy-and-secu... [2]: https://github.com/bslassey/privacy-budget https://github.com/bslassey/privacy-budget

blub 7y ago
Google Chrome, the most popular browser is developed by Google the advertiser, the biggest advertiser, so preferring one over the other makes zero difference.
- Ajedi32 7y ago
  Of course there's a difference. Instead of hundreds of advertising companies having access to my data, this way there's only one. And that's even ignoring the difference between my ad preference data being stored on a company's servers, versus stored locally on my machine by my browser.
  - ignoramous 7y ago
    I like your optimism, and I don't mean to patronise you, but I agree with your points if I keep the short term in mind. In the long run; however, I feel one would be disappointed in what the ad-industry will turn this privacy-sandbox into. Refusal to ack DNT and dark patterns in-use all throughout the interwebs stands testament to this. Advertisement has, unfortunately, degraded into a plague spreading scareware, spyware, malware, scamware and what not. It gets worse with each passing day as more unsuspecting users discover internet for the first time. The surveillance appartus that the industry has built has made robots out of humans, mere instruments to be toyed with. Not all parts of the advertisement industry is worthy of our data but have access to it anyway, because they've got the money to burn that companies like Google and Facebook scramble over to gather. These companies need to be forced to come up with alternative business models or ads that do not require extensive surveillance, or I am afraid given the unprecedented data they have amassed, they will attract, in the long term, all sorts of power-hungry designs and the outcome is going to be a disaster for everyone else but the power-grabbers. The result isn't going to be pretty. Sorry to go all Orwellian on you.
    - Ajedi32 7y ago
      > These companies need to be forced to come up with alternative business models or ads that do not require extensive surveillance That's exactly what Google is trying to do here. They're replacing the existing ad system with one that does not require surveillance to achieve ad targeting.
_underfl0w_ 7y ago
Assuming this proposal is adopted in some sense, how much time until Firefox (the alternative big name browser in this case) - or more specifically Mozilla, the browser vendor - does something that Google doesn't like while adhering to the specs? This is putting the power in the hands of browser vendors after all. Letting Google - the advertising conglomerate that "vends" its own browser - use its industry sway to publish standards that give power to browser vendors is concerning because Google already has its finger in that pie also. They've already begun to track users through Chrome itself now with account tie-in in the actual application. Google can now play friendly and claim to be keeping web advertising at bay, while siphoning increased amount of data directly from the user's browser - no JavaScript required.

blub 7y ago

Google Chrome, the most popular browser is developed by Google the advertiser, the biggest advertiser, so preferring one over the other makes zero difference.

Ajedi32 7y ago
Of course there's a difference. Instead of hundreds of advertising companies having access to my data, this way there's only one. And that's even ignoring the difference between my ad preference data being stored on a company's servers, versus stored locally on my machine by my browser.
- ignoramous 7y ago
  I like your optimism, and I don't mean to patronise you, but I agree with your points if I keep the short term in mind. In the long run; however, I feel one would be disappointed in what the ad-industry will turn this privacy-sandbox into. Refusal to ack DNT and dark patterns in-use all throughout the interwebs stands testament to this. Advertisement has, unfortunately, degraded into a plague spreading scareware, spyware, malware, scamware and what not. It gets worse with each passing day as more unsuspecting users discover internet for the first time. The surveillance appartus that the industry has built has made robots out of humans, mere instruments to be toyed with. Not all parts of the advertisement industry is worthy of our data but have access to it anyway, because they've got the money to burn that companies like Google and Facebook scramble over to gather. These companies need to be forced to come up with alternative business models or ads that do not require extensive surveillance, or I am afraid given the unprecedented data they have amassed, they will attract, in the long term, all sorts of power-hungry designs and the outcome is going to be a disaster for everyone else but the power-grabbers. The result isn't going to be pretty. Sorry to go all Orwellian on you.
  - Ajedi32 7y ago
    > These companies need to be forced to come up with alternative business models or ads that do not require extensive surveillance That's exactly what Google is trying to do here. They're replacing the existing ad system with one that does not require surveillance to achieve ad targeting.

_underfl0w_ 7y ago

Assuming this proposal is adopted in some sense, how much time until Firefox (the alternative big name browser in this case) - or more specifically Mozilla, the browser vendor - does something that Google doesn't like while adhering to the specs? This is putting the power in the hands of browser vendors after all. Letting Google - the advertising conglomerate that "vends" its own browser - use its industry sway to publish standards that give power to browser vendors is concerning because Google already has its finger in that pie also. They've already begun to track users through Chrome itself now with account tie-in in the actual application. Google can now play friendly and claim to be keeping web advertising at bay, while siphoning increased amount of data directly from the user's browser - no JavaScript required.