5 ms·

I'll leave this quote from the EFF article on FloC[1] > Google’s pitch to privacy advocates is that a world with FLoC (and other elements of the “privacy sandb

I'll leave this quote from the EFF article on FloC[1] > Google’s pitch to privacy advocates is that a world with FLoC (and other elements of the “privacy sandbox”) will be better than the world we have today, where data brokers and ad-tech giants track and profile with impunity. But that framing is based on a false premise that we have to choose between “old tracking” and “new tracking.” It’s not either-or. Instead of re-inventing the tracking wheel, we should imagine a better world without the myriad problems of targeted ads. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/googles-floc-terrible-idea https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/googles-floc-terrible-...

jnxx 5y ago
> But that framing is based on a false premise Another false premise is that the "old tracking" will stop because of the "new tracking".
- halflings 5y ago
  Chrome is entirely removing third-party cookies by 2022. https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/14/21064698/google-third-party-cookies-chrome-two-years-privacy-safari-firefox https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/14/21064698/google-third-par...
  - Macha 5y ago
    Fingerprinting and connecting to logins has been a thing forever, just look at advertising companies offering cross-device targeting. Or just how aggressively google wants you to login to youtube these days.
    - halikular 5y ago
      Facebook Instagram and Linkedin is worse in that it is impossible to use these sites without logging in.
  - gkbrk 5y ago
    Chrome is also hard-coding exemptions to Google and DoubleClick domains from their so-called privacy features. This includes things like clearing the cookies leaving Google cookies alone, to sending a header with a browser ID to Google domains. I really doubt Google will get rid of all theirs methods to tie in their scripts on third-party websites to one user ID, as that will greatly reduce the effectiveness of Google Analytics or ReCAPTCHA.
  - jnxx 5y ago
    That's very generous. However, with the plethora of browser fingerprinting techniques, cookies today have become almost irrelevant: https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://scrapebot.com/browser-fingerprinting-techniques/ https://scrapebot.com/browser-fingerprinting-techniques/
    - creata 5y ago
      Regardless of how simple fingerprinting is, I'm pretty sure that cookies are still the main way in which advertisers track users. Why make their job cheaper than it has to be?
      - jnxx 5y ago
        I agree. What I wanted to point out is that this is not intended as a privacy-enhancing move by Google. More that they make life a bit harder for their own competitors.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    I wish there was a way to whitelist SOME third party cookies in Safari - the only options seem to be all/none. Many “enterprise” integrations (Box in Salesforce for example) break if third party cookies are blocked. Maybe Chrome doing it will get them assed to fix it.
- StavrosK 5y ago
  The old tracking is stopping whether sites want to or not, since users are now wise to uBlock Origin and browsers have finally started pushing for privacy.
  - ArneBab 5y ago
    Too few.
discordianfish 5y ago
This isn't a false premise. Either you get the ad supported industry behind some solution or whatever privacy respecting solution will be incompatible with these sites.
- ArneBab 5y ago
  Or the ad supported industry finds ways to be supported without ads. That would be the ideal outcome. It would align them with the needs of their customers.
- bnj 5y ago
  To paraphrase something I saw on twitter recently: The ad supported industry needs to track users; users don't need the ad supported industry. If the effort to increase user control and privacy continues, sites that can't support themselves without targeted ad revenue will either adapt or fold.
remus 5y ago
To me it seems FLoC is more about trying to stop a fingerprinting arms race between browsers and adtech, as will happen if third party cookies are removed and no other alternative is provided. In an ideal world adtech companies would just hold up their hands and say 'games up, on to something else' but it's an industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars so if the more honest players leave the shadier companies will be only too happy to cash in.
- danShumway 5y ago
  Part of the problem is that I don't believe FLoC will stop a fingerprinting arms race. FLoC in many ways makes it easier to fingerprint users, and I don't think that advertisers are going to look at the brand new opportunity FLoC-enhanced fingerprinting presents and just leave it sitting there untouched. There's nothing built into the FLoC spec that prevents advertisers from adding in additional fingerprinting on top of FLoC, and we've been down this road already with stuff like DNT. If any technology at all can be abused for fingerprinting, they'll abuse it. The market they're in doesn't allow them to have restraint, somebody will cross the line and then everyone else will follow under the excuse of being competitive. So I'm just not willing to give advertisers the benefit of the doubt anymore, or to assume that if we meet them halfway they'll be satisfied. They've already burned that bridge, I'm not inclined to keep offering them new bridges to burn.
  - luckylion 5y ago
    > we've been down this road already with stuff like DNT Let's not forget that Microsoft deliberately murdered DNT by making it the default value. Had they not made that move, there's a good chance, we'd have seen DNT honored and eventually codified. > They've already burned that bridge, I'm not inclined to keep offering them new bridges to burn. I agree, if you give them no option whatsoever, there will never be legislation reining them in. With FLoC, you could outlaw other forms of tracking and add significant fines. Without it, politicians will not move a finger over concerns to damage the industry.
    - danShumway 5y ago

jnxx 5y ago

> But that framing is based on a false premise Another false premise is that the "old tracking" will stop because of the "new tracking".

halflings 5y ago
Chrome is entirely removing third-party cookies by 2022. https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/14/21064698/google-third-party-cookies-chrome-two-years-privacy-safari-firefox https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/14/21064698/google-third-par...
- Macha 5y ago
  Fingerprinting and connecting to logins has been a thing forever, just look at advertising companies offering cross-device targeting. Or just how aggressively google wants you to login to youtube these days.
  - halikular 5y ago
    Facebook Instagram and Linkedin is worse in that it is impossible to use these sites without logging in.
- gkbrk 5y ago
  Chrome is also hard-coding exemptions to Google and DoubleClick domains from their so-called privacy features. This includes things like clearing the cookies leaving Google cookies alone, to sending a header with a browser ID to Google domains. I really doubt Google will get rid of all theirs methods to tie in their scripts on third-party websites to one user ID, as that will greatly reduce the effectiveness of Google Analytics or ReCAPTCHA.
- jnxx 5y ago
  That's very generous. However, with the plethora of browser fingerprinting techniques, cookies today have become almost irrelevant: https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://scrapebot.com/browser-fingerprinting-techniques/ https://scrapebot.com/browser-fingerprinting-techniques/
  - creata 5y ago
    Regardless of how simple fingerprinting is, I'm pretty sure that cookies are still the main way in which advertisers track users. Why make their job cheaper than it has to be?
    - jnxx 5y ago
      I agree. What I wanted to point out is that this is not intended as a privacy-enhancing move by Google. More that they make life a bit harder for their own competitors.
- bombcar 5y ago
  I wish there was a way to whitelist SOME third party cookies in Safari - the only options seem to be all/none. Many “enterprise” integrations (Box in Salesforce for example) break if third party cookies are blocked. Maybe Chrome doing it will get them assed to fix it.
StavrosK 5y ago
The old tracking is stopping whether sites want to or not, since users are now wise to uBlock Origin and browsers have finally started pushing for privacy.
- ArneBab 5y ago
  Too few.

discordianfish 5y ago

This isn't a false premise. Either you get the ad supported industry behind some solution or whatever privacy respecting solution will be incompatible with these sites.

ArneBab 5y ago
Or the ad supported industry finds ways to be supported without ads. That would be the ideal outcome. It would align them with the needs of their customers.
bnj 5y ago
To paraphrase something I saw on twitter recently: The ad supported industry needs to track users; users don't need the ad supported industry. If the effort to increase user control and privacy continues, sites that can't support themselves without targeted ad revenue will either adapt or fold.

remus 5y ago

To me it seems FLoC is more about trying to stop a fingerprinting arms race between browsers and adtech, as will happen if third party cookies are removed and no other alternative is provided. In an ideal world adtech companies would just hold up their hands and say 'games up, on to something else' but it's an industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars so if the more honest players leave the shadier companies will be only too happy to cash in.

danShumway 5y ago
Part of the problem is that I don't believe FLoC will stop a fingerprinting arms race. FLoC in many ways makes it easier to fingerprint users, and I don't think that advertisers are going to look at the brand new opportunity FLoC-enhanced fingerprinting presents and just leave it sitting there untouched. There's nothing built into the FLoC spec that prevents advertisers from adding in additional fingerprinting on top of FLoC, and we've been down this road already with stuff like DNT. If any technology at all can be abused for fingerprinting, they'll abuse it. The market they're in doesn't allow them to have restraint, somebody will cross the line and then everyone else will follow under the excuse of being competitive. So I'm just not willing to give advertisers the benefit of the doubt anymore, or to assume that if we meet them halfway they'll be satisfied. They've already burned that bridge, I'm not inclined to keep offering them new bridges to burn.
- luckylion 5y ago
  > we've been down this road already with stuff like DNT Let's not forget that Microsoft deliberately murdered DNT by making it the default value. Had they not made that move, there's a good chance, we'd have seen DNT honored and eventually codified. > They've already burned that bridge, I'm not inclined to keep offering them new bridges to burn. I agree, if you give them no option whatsoever, there will never be legislation reining them in. With FLoC, you could outlaw other forms of tracking and add significant fines. Without it, politicians will not move a finger over concerns to damage the industry.
  - danShumway 5y ago