6 ms·

It sounds like floc is a way to tag people as a particular type of user rather than track every individual, well, individually. Isn't that an improvement over c

It sounds like floc is a way to tag people as a particular type of user rather than track every individual, well, individually. Isn't that an improvement over cookies?

withinboredom 6y ago
Since the cohorts are so small (a few thousand), it's extremely likely that the FLOC id and the ip address is all you need to track someone, even behind NAT.
LordHeini 6y ago
No because third party cookies (which are needed for cross site tracking) are often (and should be) blocked. The floc is based on your browsing history. It is sort of a hash of the sites you visited and can be requested via a Js call by any (!) site you visit. The floc is shared by a group of users not sure how that works but it is stated that those are a few 1000 large. Combine that with other tracking stuff like fingerprinting and ip and you can easily identify a user (especially if you are google and your adds hang around everywhere in the net).
- Google234 6y ago
  You can block floc too... which kind of kills your argument that it’s worse since it’s not worse than 3rd party cookies
  - zeusflight 6y ago
    This is what Brave team says about FLoC vs 3rd party cookies [1]: > Google says FLoC is privacy preserving compared to sending third-party cookies. But this is a misleading baseline to compare against. Many browsers don’t send third-party cookies at all; Brave hasn’t ever. Saying a new Chrome feature is privacy-improving only when compared to status-quo Chrome (the most privacy-harming popular browser on the market), is misleading, self-serving, and a further reason for users to run away from Chrome. Most regular users wont install a blocker. But most other browsers block 3rd party cookies by default. Meaning, Chrome's market share will be the only reason FLoC will ever succeed. On top of that Chrome is known to shift the goal posts for blockers. You shouldn't be surprised if FLoC cannot be blocked on Chrome in the future. [1] https://brave.com/why-brave-disables-floc/ https://brave.com/why-brave-disables-floc/
    - billytetrud 6y ago
      That sounds disingenuous. Most browsers do not block cookies by default. Cookies are a critical piece of the web. Chrome doesn't, Firefox doesn't, and ie/edge don't. Sounds more like Brave is giving themselves a pat on the back.
PikachuEXE 6y ago
Have a read over https://spreadprivacy.com/block-floc-with-duckduckgo/ https://spreadprivacy.com/block-floc-with-duckduckgo/ Probably start with "What are some of those privacy concerns with FLoC?"

It sounds like floc is a way to tag people as a particular type of user rather than track every individual, well, individually. Isn't that an improvement over cookies?

withinboredom 6y ago

Since the cohorts are so small (a few thousand), it's extremely likely that the FLOC id and the ip address is all you need to track someone, even behind NAT.

LordHeini 6y ago

No because third party cookies (which are needed for cross site tracking) are often (and should be) blocked. The floc is based on your browsing history. It is sort of a hash of the sites you visited and can be requested via a Js call by any (!) site you visit. The floc is shared by a group of users not sure how that works but it is stated that those are a few 1000 large. Combine that with other tracking stuff like fingerprinting and ip and you can easily identify a user (especially if you are google and your adds hang around everywhere in the net).

Google234 6y ago
You can block floc too... which kind of kills your argument that it’s worse since it’s not worse than 3rd party cookies
- zeusflight 6y ago
  This is what Brave team says about FLoC vs 3rd party cookies [1]: > Google says FLoC is privacy preserving compared to sending third-party cookies. But this is a misleading baseline to compare against. Many browsers don’t send third-party cookies at all; Brave hasn’t ever. Saying a new Chrome feature is privacy-improving only when compared to status-quo Chrome (the most privacy-harming popular browser on the market), is misleading, self-serving, and a further reason for users to run away from Chrome. Most regular users wont install a blocker. But most other browsers block 3rd party cookies by default. Meaning, Chrome's market share will be the only reason FLoC will ever succeed. On top of that Chrome is known to shift the goal posts for blockers. You shouldn't be surprised if FLoC cannot be blocked on Chrome in the future. [1] https://brave.com/why-brave-disables-floc/ https://brave.com/why-brave-disables-floc/
  - billytetrud 6y ago
    That sounds disingenuous. Most browsers do not block cookies by default. Cookies are a critical piece of the web. Chrome doesn't, Firefox doesn't, and ie/edge don't. Sounds more like Brave is giving themselves a pat on the back.

PikachuEXE 6y ago

Have a read over https://spreadprivacy.com/block-floc-with-duckduckgo/ https://spreadprivacy.com/block-floc-with-duckduckgo/ Probably start with "What are some of those privacy concerns with FLoC?"