19 ms·

I am hopeful that this will help get rid of FLoC but I worry about two things. One, this will end up being treated like the "no track" headers. That's just tota

I am hopeful that this will help get rid of FLoC but I worry about two things. One, this will end up being treated like the "no track" headers. That's just totally ignored after IE (was it IE?) enabled it be default. That gave all the trackers a reason to just ignore it and track everyone. I don't know if that exact same thing can happen here, but something similar maybe? The other thing I worry about is that FLoC 2.0 or whatever might replace it, will be worse. "Kill it before it lays eggs." but do we worry about what evolves from this if it dies?

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
We're already successfully killing third party cookies and most browser fingerprinting strategies. This is an attempt by a browser to build an intentionally user hostile mechanic to compensate, but we can kill this too. We just need to continue to make it increasingly impractical and expensive to track users until it stops being considered a viable business strategy.
- skybrian 6y ago
  What do you mean? They are widely used, which seems far from dead. Aren’t you declaring victory too early?
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    These are strategies that are being aggressively restricted. Chrome has not started preventing third party cookies yet, but they're the last holdout and have already stated they will kill them shortly. If you're using a non-user-hostile browser, these strategies are already heavily limited by default and are already not a concern. Every Firefox release is making significant improvements on reducing the fingerprinting footprint of the browser, and several user-hostile API features proposed by Google have been rejected by them and Safari to prevent expanded fingerprinting.
    - skybrian 6y ago
      Okay, I still think it’s too soon to declare victory until Chrome actually does it. It could be delayed.
    - jefftk 6y ago
      > Chrome has not started preventing third party cookies yet, but they're the last holdout and have already stated they will kill them shortly. Chrome's original announcement about phasing out third-party cookies is explicit about new technologies like Privacy Sandbox (which includes FLoc) being how third-party cookies will no longer be needed: "After initial dialogue with the web community, we are confident that with continued iteration and feedback, privacy-preserving and open-standard mechanisms like the Privacy Sandbox can sustain a healthy, ad-supported web in a way that will render third-party cookies obsolete. Once these approaches have addressed the needs of users, publishers, and advertisers, and we have developed the tools to mitigate workarounds, we plan to phase out support for third-party cookies in Chrome. Our intention is to do this within two years." -- https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-path-towards.html https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-... (Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)
      - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        Rhetorical thought question: How long could Chrome survive as the only browser which refuses to stop tracking users? The idea that Chrome was the fastest or best browser has fallen pretty far out and behind those which block tracking scripts and ad content, and two alternatives to Google straight up pay users to use them, where's the carrot for using Chrome?
      - fomine3 6y ago
        So probably the phasing out third-party cookies will be postponed due to these reaction?
        jefftk 6y ago
        It is not clear to me at all what the overall view is on FLoC. Brave and Vivaldi don't like it, sure, but they already ship with built-in ad blockers so of course they don't. People here who don't like it also seem to be against advertising in any form beyond direct deals between publishers and advertisers for <img src="https://advertiser.example/ad https://advertiser.example/ad">. If there are people who are (a) ok with personalized ads, providing they can be done sufficiently privately and (b) do not like FLoC, then I'd love to read what they have to say! (Still speaking only for myself.)
  - thejohnconway 6y ago
    Safari and Firefox already block them by default, and Chrome is set to block them before 2022: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-chrome-cookies-third-party-ads https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-chrome-cookies-third-... The FLoC proposal (and others) are happening now because of the coming cookiepocalypse.
    - jefftk 6y ago
      The causality is more complex: Chrome's approach from the beginning was that they would remove third-party cookies and replace them with more private alternatives like FLoC: https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-path-towards.html https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-... (Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)
      - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        If we kill FLoC, my hope would be that Google still finds it untenable to backpedal on removing third party cookies... or that public awareness about Google's antiprivacy stance kills Chrome if they do backpedal. It's simple: We force Google to stop tracking us, or we stop using Google products.
        jefftk 6y ago
        Chrome is not the only browser working on more advertising-specific APIs as more-private replacements for third-party cookies. For example, Edge is proposing PARAKEET [1] for remarketing, and Safari has implemented an initial conversion tracking API [2]. [1] https://github.com/WICG/privacy-preserving-ads/blob/main/Parakeet.md https://github.com/WICG/privacy-preserving-ads/blob/main/Par... [2] https://webkit.org/blog/8943/privacy-preserving-ad-click-attribution-for-the-web/ https://webkit.org/blog/8943/privacy-preserving-ad-click-att...
        ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        Yeah, I've heard of PARAKEET, and imagine concerns are quite similar to FLoC. Thankfully, Microsoft doesn't have the capability to push web standards, so as long as Google doesn't adopt it, we are good there. =) Apple's solution doesn't look like it provides user interests or demographics, does it?
- izacus 6y ago
  By "we" here you mean... Google with Chrome (as the most popular browser), Apple with Safari and Mozilla with Firefow. Google being the one against whom the fight against FLoC is being fought? That sounds... optimistic since you needed Google to form that "we".
izacus 6y ago
> "Kill it before it lays eggs." but do we worry about what evolves from this if it dies? Nothing really evolves here - status quo is what stays. You continue to be tracked head to arse on everyones servers, the media keeps adding 150 trackers to every webpage and the internet moves on. Thinking that one of the biggest profit making industries in US will just go away if you scream loud enough on HN is utterly naive and will require a better push. This approach is inherently negative and just STOPS a process - but it doesn't IMPROVE on the current state and that will require more work. I'm not quite sure what that work would be though - it seems that current approach is "this gigantic multibillon industry must be banned and completely destroyed" which is great on a personal level, but I don't feel like it's realistic on a purely political level.
- Santosh83 6y ago
  Only govt action will work. That too concerted action by several national govts.
  - sneak 6y ago
    Developing a browser (or forking the existing one) with comprehensive anti-tracking features would also work. There are a half-dozen plugins one can add to Ungoogled Chromium to browse the web in (relative) safety. It's not a nation-state level undertaking: six or seven figures. The problem really comes from apps, which are loaded to the gills with spyware.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      How can it do that when the server needs an IP address to send traffic to? Cookies just make it more convenient but there is fundamentally that "analog hole". You can Tor things up and obfuscate but if you can interact with them they can track you.
      - jefftk 6y ago
        > How can it do that when the server needs an IP address to send traffic to? https://github.com/bslassey/ip-blindness https://github.com/bslassey/ip-blindness
clankyclanker 6y ago
What's to say Chrome will actually respect the opt-out headers in the first place? It could easily go like the DNT-headers, which was just interpreted as a signal to please-track-harder.
ysavir 6y ago
Are you sure it won't evolve into that anyway? Google isn't looking at FLoC as a compromise, it's just an intermediary while they continue their ever-lasting search to optimize their ad services. The next Big Thing will arrive whether or not FLoC is allowed to exist.
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> this will end up being treated like the "no track" headers This seems disanalogous. FLoC requires browser cooperation. The user can simply use a browser other than Chrome.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

We're already successfully killing third party cookies and most browser fingerprinting strategies. This is an attempt by a browser to build an intentionally user hostile mechanic to compensate, but we can kill this too. We just need to continue to make it increasingly impractical and expensive to track users until it stops being considered a viable business strategy.

skybrian 6y ago
What do you mean? They are widely used, which seems far from dead. Aren’t you declaring victory too early?
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  These are strategies that are being aggressively restricted. Chrome has not started preventing third party cookies yet, but they're the last holdout and have already stated they will kill them shortly. If you're using a non-user-hostile browser, these strategies are already heavily limited by default and are already not a concern. Every Firefox release is making significant improvements on reducing the fingerprinting footprint of the browser, and several user-hostile API features proposed by Google have been rejected by them and Safari to prevent expanded fingerprinting.
  - skybrian 6y ago
    Okay, I still think it’s too soon to declare victory until Chrome actually does it. It could be delayed.
  - jefftk 6y ago
    > Chrome has not started preventing third party cookies yet, but they're the last holdout and have already stated they will kill them shortly. Chrome's original announcement about phasing out third-party cookies is explicit about new technologies like Privacy Sandbox (which includes FLoc) being how third-party cookies will no longer be needed: "After initial dialogue with the web community, we are confident that with continued iteration and feedback, privacy-preserving and open-standard mechanisms like the Privacy Sandbox can sustain a healthy, ad-supported web in a way that will render third-party cookies obsolete. Once these approaches have addressed the needs of users, publishers, and advertisers, and we have developed the tools to mitigate workarounds, we plan to phase out support for third-party cookies in Chrome. Our intention is to do this within two years." -- https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-path-towards.html https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-... (Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      Rhetorical thought question: How long could Chrome survive as the only browser which refuses to stop tracking users? The idea that Chrome was the fastest or best browser has fallen pretty far out and behind those which block tracking scripts and ad content, and two alternatives to Google straight up pay users to use them, where's the carrot for using Chrome?
    - fomine3 6y ago
      So probably the phasing out third-party cookies will be postponed due to these reaction?
      - jefftk 6y ago
        It is not clear to me at all what the overall view is on FLoC. Brave and Vivaldi don't like it, sure, but they already ship with built-in ad blockers so of course they don't. People here who don't like it also seem to be against advertising in any form beyond direct deals between publishers and advertisers for <img src="https://advertiser.example/ad https://advertiser.example/ad">. If there are people who are (a) ok with personalized ads, providing they can be done sufficiently privately and (b) do not like FLoC, then I'd love to read what they have to say! (Still speaking only for myself.)
- thejohnconway 6y ago
  Safari and Firefox already block them by default, and Chrome is set to block them before 2022: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-chrome-cookies-third-party-ads https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-chrome-cookies-third-... The FLoC proposal (and others) are happening now because of the coming cookiepocalypse.
  - jefftk 6y ago
    The causality is more complex: Chrome's approach from the beginning was that they would remove third-party cookies and replace them with more private alternatives like FLoC: https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-path-towards.html https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-... (Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      If we kill FLoC, my hope would be that Google still finds it untenable to backpedal on removing third party cookies... or that public awareness about Google's antiprivacy stance kills Chrome if they do backpedal. It's simple: We force Google to stop tracking us, or we stop using Google products.
      - jefftk 6y ago
        Chrome is not the only browser working on more advertising-specific APIs as more-private replacements for third-party cookies. For example, Edge is proposing PARAKEET [1] for remarketing, and Safari has implemented an initial conversion tracking API [2]. [1] https://github.com/WICG/privacy-preserving-ads/blob/main/Parakeet.md https://github.com/WICG/privacy-preserving-ads/blob/main/Par... [2] https://webkit.org/blog/8943/privacy-preserving-ad-click-attribution-for-the-web/ https://webkit.org/blog/8943/privacy-preserving-ad-click-att...
        ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        Yeah, I've heard of PARAKEET, and imagine concerns are quite similar to FLoC. Thankfully, Microsoft doesn't have the capability to push web standards, so as long as Google doesn't adopt it, we are good there. =) Apple's solution doesn't look like it provides user interests or demographics, does it?
izacus 6y ago
By "we" here you mean... Google with Chrome (as the most popular browser), Apple with Safari and Mozilla with Firefow. Google being the one against whom the fight against FLoC is being fought? That sounds... optimistic since you needed Google to form that "we".

izacus 6y ago

> "Kill it before it lays eggs." but do we worry about what evolves from this if it dies? Nothing really evolves here - status quo is what stays. You continue to be tracked head to arse on everyones servers, the media keeps adding 150 trackers to every webpage and the internet moves on. Thinking that one of the biggest profit making industries in US will just go away if you scream loud enough on HN is utterly naive and will require a better push. This approach is inherently negative and just STOPS a process - but it doesn't IMPROVE on the current state and that will require more work. I'm not quite sure what that work would be though - it seems that current approach is "this gigantic multibillon industry must be banned and completely destroyed" which is great on a personal level, but I don't feel like it's realistic on a purely political level.

Santosh83 6y ago
Only govt action will work. That too concerted action by several national govts.
- sneak 6y ago
  Developing a browser (or forking the existing one) with comprehensive anti-tracking features would also work. There are a half-dozen plugins one can add to Ungoogled Chromium to browse the web in (relative) safety. It's not a nation-state level undertaking: six or seven figures. The problem really comes from apps, which are loaded to the gills with spyware.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    How can it do that when the server needs an IP address to send traffic to? Cookies just make it more convenient but there is fundamentally that "analog hole". You can Tor things up and obfuscate but if you can interact with them they can track you.
    - jefftk 6y ago
      > How can it do that when the server needs an IP address to send traffic to? https://github.com/bslassey/ip-blindness https://github.com/bslassey/ip-blindness

clankyclanker 6y ago

What's to say Chrome will actually respect the opt-out headers in the first place? It could easily go like the DNT-headers, which was just interpreted as a signal to please-track-harder.

ysavir 6y ago

Are you sure it won't evolve into that anyway? Google isn't looking at FLoC as a compromise, it's just an intermediary while they continue their ever-lasting search to optimize their ad services. The next Big Thing will arrive whether or not FLoC is allowed to exist.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

> this will end up being treated like the "no track" headers This seems disanalogous. FLoC requires browser cooperation. The user can simply use a browser other than Chrome.