4 ms·

Will I be able to opt out from this?

by ttt0 6y ago

esperent 6y ago
I guess we'll find out in a few weeks when testing starts. My guess is that it'll be hidden deep in about:config somewhere.
- 0xy 6y ago
  Given Google's other tracking practices (X-Client-Data and leaky modern APIs like AudioContext), very unlikely. X-Client-Data cannot be disabled (it's hard-coded) and ships telemetry to DoubleClick without disclosure. Google Chrome is the DoubleClick browser. Why else would DoubleClick be hardcoded into the source as a place to send telemetry?
izacus 6y ago
I'd assume that you can use a browser that doesn't send this data?
- kibwen 6y ago
  Until Google sites start deliberately breaking if you don't send this data (or your browser is known to implement any other feature intended to circumvent it), thereby destroying the market share of any browser that dares to do so.
  - oytis 6y ago
    You can send bogus data in this case.
    - kibwen 6y ago
      I mention this. If Firefox were to come out and say "we're going to start spoofing this data", Google servers would start rejecting Firefox users within the week. No major browser would dare do it, not even Safari and Edge, because plenty of people are forced to use Google services for work. At best, you would have a small number of people using minor browsers and passing around patches for major browsers to spoof the data discreetly.
      - izacus 6y ago
        I'm pretty sure Google would never dare block Safari and start a direct war against Apple - they're even powerless to resist current privacy changes on Safari. Apple has monopoly on browsers on the most popular modern mobile platform and I don't think Google can fight that.
      - jackson1442 6y ago
        Edge is chromium so you're SOL anyways haha. I don't see why uBlock Origin or another addon couldn't do this for you though.
      - tpxl 6y ago
        Firefox blocks (blocked?) [0] google analytics in incognito mode in firefox and google still pays them buckets of money. It's not the same as doing it in normal mode, but it is in that direction. [0] https://twitter.com/__jakub_g/status/1365400306767581185 https://twitter.com/__jakub_g/status/1365400306767581185
      - oytis 6y ago
        There is a slight difference between a monopoly and a dominant market position. The latter is only achieved by consistently being better than competitors and it is easy to lose once this is no longer the case. Google with all its current power is not in the position to dictate what all the browsers should do - and prohibiting Firefox from its servers is a) an evil move that would make people reconsider their dependency on Google services (and there are a lot of companies that would be happy to get these customers) b) Is easy to circumvent by using Chrome for Google services and Firefox/whatever for anything else.
- ttt0 6y ago
  Too bad that almost all of them are Chromium based now. I wonder if websites are going to block you out if you don't have this enabled. Like they do with adblockers.
darren_ 6y ago
Yes: https://github.com/WICG/floc https://github.com/WICG/floc > "Whether the browser sends a real FLoC or a random one is user controllable." FLoC stuff is client side. You can send nil FLoC IDs. You can randomize them on every request. You can swap them with your friends. Whatever. Vanilla Chrome might not let you (my money would be on an off-switch but not anything fun) but that's hardly going to be a blocker. (googler but works on something completely unrelated)
- dathinab 6y ago
  That is until they combine it with DRM tech similar to the current web DRM plugins which "certify" that you use a google approved FLoC implementation which sends proper data or you will not be able to visit the site because you get spammed with endless CAPTCHAs

Will I be able to opt out from this?

by ttt0 6y ago

Will I be able to opt out from this?

I guess we'll find out in a few weeks when testing starts. My guess is that it'll be hidden deep in about:config somewhere.

0xy 6y ago
Given Google's other tracking practices (X-Client-Data and leaky modern APIs like AudioContext), very unlikely. X-Client-Data cannot be disabled (it's hard-coded) and ships telemetry to DoubleClick without disclosure. Google Chrome is the DoubleClick browser. Why else would DoubleClick be hardcoded into the source as a place to send telemetry?

izacus 6y ago

I'd assume that you can use a browser that doesn't send this data?

kibwen 6y ago
Until Google sites start deliberately breaking if you don't send this data (or your browser is known to implement any other feature intended to circumvent it), thereby destroying the market share of any browser that dares to do so.
- oytis 6y ago
  You can send bogus data in this case.
  - kibwen 6y ago
    I mention this. If Firefox were to come out and say "we're going to start spoofing this data", Google servers would start rejecting Firefox users within the week. No major browser would dare do it, not even Safari and Edge, because plenty of people are forced to use Google services for work. At best, you would have a small number of people using minor browsers and passing around patches for major browsers to spoof the data discreetly.
    - izacus 6y ago
      I'm pretty sure Google would never dare block Safari and start a direct war against Apple - they're even powerless to resist current privacy changes on Safari. Apple has monopoly on browsers on the most popular modern mobile platform and I don't think Google can fight that.
    - jackson1442 6y ago
      Edge is chromium so you're SOL anyways haha. I don't see why uBlock Origin or another addon couldn't do this for you though.
    - tpxl 6y ago
      Firefox blocks (blocked?) [0] google analytics in incognito mode in firefox and google still pays them buckets of money. It's not the same as doing it in normal mode, but it is in that direction. [0] https://twitter.com/__jakub_g/status/1365400306767581185 https://twitter.com/__jakub_g/status/1365400306767581185
    - oytis 6y ago
      There is a slight difference between a monopoly and a dominant market position. The latter is only achieved by consistently being better than competitors and it is easy to lose once this is no longer the case. Google with all its current power is not in the position to dictate what all the browsers should do - and prohibiting Firefox from its servers is a) an evil move that would make people reconsider their dependency on Google services (and there are a lot of companies that would be happy to get these customers) b) Is easy to circumvent by using Chrome for Google services and Firefox/whatever for anything else.
ttt0 6y ago
Too bad that almost all of them are Chromium based now. I wonder if websites are going to block you out if you don't have this enabled. Like they do with adblockers.

darren_ 6y ago

Yes: https://github.com/WICG/floc https://github.com/WICG/floc > "Whether the browser sends a real FLoC or a random one is user controllable." FLoC stuff is client side. You can send nil FLoC IDs. You can randomize them on every request. You can swap them with your friends. Whatever. Vanilla Chrome might not let you (my money would be on an off-switch but not anything fun) but that's hardly going to be a blocker. (googler but works on something completely unrelated)

dathinab 6y ago
That is until they combine it with DRM tech similar to the current web DRM plugins which "certify" that you use a google approved FLoC implementation which sends proper data or you will not be able to visit the site because you get spammed with endless CAPTCHAs