4 ms·

The passage quoted above refers to the way google plans to audit FLoC, not FLoC itself. Each browser is assigned a single floc ID, which is (for now) a 50-bit

The passage quoted above refers to the way google plans to audit FLoC, not FLoC itself. Each browser is assigned a single floc ID, which is (for now) a 50-bit hash that is not human readable on its own. But the floc ID is intended to capture something meaningful about browsing behavior. Two users with similar browsing history are likely to have similar, if not the same, floc IDs. Floc IDs which are close together (hamming distance-wise) also reflect similar browsing histories. (http://matpalm.com/resemblance/simhash/ http://matpalm.com/resemblance/simhash/) It will be totally possible to gather data about what kind of people belong to a particular floc -- provided that you operate a large website or ad network. It will probably not be possible for normal people. There's a risk that advertisers will learn that a particular floc ID corresponds to a "sensitive category" of users. That's what google is trying to prevent. Google plans to audit floc IDs for correlation with visits to sensitive websites. In order to do so, it's assigning a "sensitivity" label to certain websites, and then applying that label to each user who visits those websites. Then it will run analyses to see whether users with a particular floc ID are more likely to have a particular label. Floc IDs that correlate too strongly with a particluar label will be thrown out. The passage is attempting to explain why this does not prevent adtech from learning other meaningful things about flocs -- for example, that users in a specific floc are disproportionately female, or Muslim, or suffering from depression. As for whether FLoC is in chrome, see the origin trial page here: https://developer.chrome.com/origintrials/#/view_trial/213920982300098561 https://developer.chrome.com/origintrials/#/view_trial/21392...

dialtone 6y ago
All good points, but they don't change the conclusion I wrote though, you effectively further specified the lengths to which Google is going to prevent any potential bad correlation to sensitive categories. Of course there will be correlation of some sort, they aren't random groups, but so long as you can't tell sensitive categories, you can only observe that a group seems more interested in a particular advertiser products. You can't tell their browsing history, just their interests. Regarding the trial, yeah I know that origin thing is up, and the minutes for yesterday's W3C IWABG meeting aren't going to be out until next week, but the team working on this stuff at Google said that the trial up there is kind of fake and the code isn't merged in Chrome yet and won't be until 91, at some point I have to trust the engineers working on this stuff more than the rest. [edit]: To be clear, I don't mean that there's no experiment going on, I just mean that it's not the browser running it, that the removal of 3rd party cookies as a way to opt-out likely is due to the fact that they may be relying on server-side computation to do this experiment rather than the browser, I wouldn't see why the browser would care about cookies to track your history, it's already stored in the browser.
- krageon 6y ago
  > Of course there will be correlation Yes, and given enough data this: > so long as you can't tell sensitive categories will not be true. > I have to trust the engineers The engineers that work for a giant corporation whose entire reason for existing is mining and collating as much data as possible on you? Why would you trust them at all?
  - dialtone 6y ago
    Because they aren't lying... The source code of this stuff is available in the open and you can verify it. There's no FLoC in the merged code in the main branch.
    - Varriount 6y ago
      The point, I think, isn't that this is currently in Chrome, but rather that there are plans to add it to Chrome in the future.
- leereeves 6y ago
  Even with Google's auditing, there are sensitive things that Google (hopefully) can't detect, but others can. For example, insurance claims. I hope Google isn't tracking enough information to test for correlations between FLoC cohorts and insurance claims, but insurers will have access to that info when customers visit their site to pay bills. Perhaps they'll find they can more accurately anticipate customer's claims from their FLoC cohort, and use that to price new policies, thus indirectly pricing policies based on browsing history.
  - dialtone 6y ago
    The FLoC cohort changes pretty frequently with your history, I don't think you will be tagged for life with "insurance claims", but you could, for a period of time, show up as part of a group that looks interested in insurance, it will hardly go much deeper than this.

dialtone 6y ago

All good points, but they don't change the conclusion I wrote though, you effectively further specified the lengths to which Google is going to prevent any potential bad correlation to sensitive categories. Of course there will be correlation of some sort, they aren't random groups, but so long as you can't tell sensitive categories, you can only observe that a group seems more interested in a particular advertiser products. You can't tell their browsing history, just their interests. Regarding the trial, yeah I know that origin thing is up, and the minutes for yesterday's W3C IWABG meeting aren't going to be out until next week, but the team working on this stuff at Google said that the trial up there is kind of fake and the code isn't merged in Chrome yet and won't be until 91, at some point I have to trust the engineers working on this stuff more than the rest. [edit]: To be clear, I don't mean that there's no experiment going on, I just mean that it's not the browser running it, that the removal of 3rd party cookies as a way to opt-out likely is due to the fact that they may be relying on server-side computation to do this experiment rather than the browser, I wouldn't see why the browser would care about cookies to track your history, it's already stored in the browser.

krageon 6y ago
> Of course there will be correlation Yes, and given enough data this: > so long as you can't tell sensitive categories will not be true. > I have to trust the engineers The engineers that work for a giant corporation whose entire reason for existing is mining and collating as much data as possible on you? Why would you trust them at all?
- dialtone 6y ago
  Because they aren't lying... The source code of this stuff is available in the open and you can verify it. There's no FLoC in the merged code in the main branch.
  - Varriount 6y ago
    The point, I think, isn't that this is currently in Chrome, but rather that there are plans to add it to Chrome in the future.
leereeves 6y ago
Even with Google's auditing, there are sensitive things that Google (hopefully) can't detect, but others can. For example, insurance claims. I hope Google isn't tracking enough information to test for correlations between FLoC cohorts and insurance claims, but insurers will have access to that info when customers visit their site to pay bills. Perhaps they'll find they can more accurately anticipate customer's claims from their FLoC cohort, and use that to price new policies, thus indirectly pricing policies based on browsing history.
- dialtone 6y ago
  The FLoC cohort changes pretty frequently with your history, I don't think you will be tagged for life with "insurance claims", but you could, for a period of time, show up as part of a group that looks interested in insurance, it will hardly go much deeper than this.