3 ms·

Again I wrote the piece but… Folks "who are well actually, you can already make URLs meaningless"'ing are missing the point of how practical web privacy tools

by pes10k 6y ago

Again I wrote the piece but… Folks "who are well actually, you can already make URLs meaningless"'ing are missing the point of how practical web privacy tools work, including the ones you all have installed right now. There is an enormous, important difference between: i) circumventions that are possible but are fragile and cost more, and ii) circumventions that are effortless for the attacker / tracker Every practical privacy / blocking tool leverages that difference now, the proposal collapses it.

lukevp 6y ago
I am not in any way pro-Google and I feel what they are doing with AMP is a perilous path, but your article was not convincing. It’s trivially easy to rotate a JS name and serve it from the same cached edge file (eg with cloudflare workers) and not incurring any major additional cost. It’s not hard to imagine advertisers doing something similar with their own CDNs. This could even be done at the DNS level with random sub domains. Unless we are ok blocking (star).facebook.com/(star), every other part of the URL is trivially easy to randomize.