3 ms·
That "During the current FLoC origin trial" bit scares me though. Why should I assume the scope of implicit inclusion in FLoC won't be expanded in the future?
by whoopdedo 6y ago
That "During the current FLoC origin trial" bit scares me though. Why should I assume the scope of implicit inclusion in FLoC won't be expanded in the future?
I don't exactly trust this opt-out header. The spec makes it sound like it's not so much a request to the user agent not to use cohorts in general. Rather it's a security-in-depth measure to prevent third-party scripts or injected spyware from exploiting certain functions. So those functions are disabled for resources loaded from that domain. Chrome, meanwhile, can still do whatever it likes.
- jefftk 6y ago> That "During the current FLoC origin trial" bit scares me though. Why should I assume the scope of implicit inclusion in FLoC won't be expanded in the future? It's the other way around: it's saying that normally "a page visit will be included in the browser's FLoC calculation if document.interestCohort() is used on the page" but to support this specific origin trial it will also include pages "if Chrome detects that the page load ads or ads-related resources". This is needed to avoid the chicken and egg problem that you would otherwise have in a proof-of-concept experiment.
- spondyl 6y agoHi Jeff, While I don't like ads, and so by association I blindly don't like FLoC or cookies, I've been following your comments via RSS out of interest and I'd like to say thanks for always popping up in these threads to untangle some of the misconceptions (from your point of view). That doesn't necessarily mean that I, or others, trust what Google, as a business, might do tomorrow compared to what it says today but given how little the wider world tends to hear from Google (that isn't editorialised in some sense), it's nice to see Google employees engaging on Hacker News :)
- jefftk 6y agoThanks!