3 ms·

It is completely different from a CDN and the proposal itself elicits the difference thusly (to quote): > There has been discussion of allowing a publisher to

It is completely different from a CDN and the proposal itself elicits the difference thusly (to quote): > There has been discussion of allowing a publisher to restrict the set of distributors that can host its signed content. If that's added, then the privacy situation becomes more similar to the situation with CDNs, where a publisher chooses a CDN to serve their content, and the CDN learns about all requests for that content. Here the publisher would choose one or more distributors, and the distributor(s) would learn about requests for the content. Basically a signed exchange .sxg as it is right now allows anyone to be a distributor. It authenticates only that the content has not changed, but not who is distributing it was allowed to distribute it. Imagine I use SXG to sign "myBlog.com/some-post/" as "some-post.sxg" and serve it via "myCdn.com/myBlog.com/some-post.sxg" on "myBlog.com/index", like I would with a CDN. EvilSearchEngine (now being both the source that sends a results page and a distributor CDN) can crawl this index, nab the .sxg and then when it serves results, serve it via "EvilSearchEngineCDN.com/myBlog.com/some-post.sxg" instead. The client browser checks the sxg, finding it is validly signed and thus shows it as "myBlog.com/some-post/". However, (1) the EvilSearchEngine has now gained tracking data on visits to "myBlog.com/some-post/" (which it may or may not already have), but more importantly (2) I've now lost the ability to do first-party tracking of visits to "myBlog.com/some-post/" since EvilSearchEngine users never hit my server and I must now beg EvilSearchEngine to give me their tracking data for my content. Maybe they'll introduce "allowing a publisher to restrict the set of distributors", maybe they won't. But until they do, it behaves nothing like a real CDN.

nybble41 4y ago
> I've now lost the ability to do first-party tracking of visits to "myBlog.com/some-post/" since EvilSearchEngine users never hit my server See, this is one of the good things about the SE proposal. The source page already has all the tracking data; that's a given. But if the content is served via SE it reduces the number of other sites that get tracking data, which is very much a win for privacy. > Maybe they'll introduce "allowing a publisher to restrict the set of distributors", maybe they won't. It would make no sense for user agents to enforce such a restriction, since a valid signature shows that the content is authentic regardless of the identity of the distributor.
- jabbany 4y ago
  > The source page already has all the tracking data This is a lie. The source page does not have any access to referral data. Without things like JS supporting it, it does not and cannot know that a user has clicked on any of its links. > if the content is served via SE it reduces the number of other sites that get tracking data This is also a lie. It does not _reduce_ the number of sites that gets tracking data. Rather it takes the ability to control who gets to track away from a publisher (who you'd reasonably expect to be able to track your visits to _their own site!_ ), and puts it into the hands of an aggregator (like Google, who you would _not_ expect to be able to track views on third party content). In this sense it is exactly like AMP, it is a shift of who holds power over data. Users do not gain anything (privacy could be argued to be no worse, but it is certainly no better than before) but publishers have everything to lose. AMP was never a battle between users (readers) and Google. It was a battle between _content publishers_ and Google. Nothing has changed when it comes to SE. It's the same old formula just in a new bottle. Unless SE ultimately allows specification of a list of allowed distributors as part of the bundle, framing SE as "just like using a CDN" and that "Google/aggregating site doesn't benefit more from this" is at best a bit ignorant about the power struggles between publishers and aggregators.
  - nybble41 4y ago
    > The source page does not have any access to referral data. The source page determines the target of the link and can add whatever tracking data they want to it. You can see from the link target that it's going back to the same site. That is all they need to get the referral data. > It does not _reduce_ the number of sites that gets tracking data. It does, as the source page has the tracking data either way but the publisher's page does not if SE is used. Frankly I'd rather trust Google with that data—they have access to it anyway, through several different channels—than a bunch of publishers I have no other relationship with. > Unless SE ultimately allows specification of a list of allowed distributors as part of the bundle, … It won't matter if the bundle contains a list of "allowed distributors" if user agents don't enforce that restriction. And why would they? They know the content is correct regardless of where it came from due to the signature. Refusing the data won't improve privacy at all, as the server already knows that the link was followed. The only one seeing any benefit here is the publisher, who would get tracking data at the expense of the user's privacy. The user agent doesn't represent the publisher, it represents the user.

nybble41 4y ago

> I've now lost the ability to do first-party tracking of visits to "myBlog.com/some-post/" since EvilSearchEngine users never hit my server See, this is one of the good things about the SE proposal. The source page already has all the tracking data; that's a given. But if the content is served via SE it reduces the number of other sites that get tracking data, which is very much a win for privacy. > Maybe they'll introduce "allowing a publisher to restrict the set of distributors", maybe they won't. It would make no sense for user agents to enforce such a restriction, since a valid signature shows that the content is authentic regardless of the identity of the distributor.

jabbany 4y ago
> The source page already has all the tracking data This is a lie. The source page does not have any access to referral data. Without things like JS supporting it, it does not and cannot know that a user has clicked on any of its links. > if the content is served via SE it reduces the number of other sites that get tracking data This is also a lie. It does not _reduce_ the number of sites that gets tracking data. Rather it takes the ability to control who gets to track away from a publisher (who you'd reasonably expect to be able to track your visits to _their own site!_ ), and puts it into the hands of an aggregator (like Google, who you would _not_ expect to be able to track views on third party content). In this sense it is exactly like AMP, it is a shift of who holds power over data. Users do not gain anything (privacy could be argued to be no worse, but it is certainly no better than before) but publishers have everything to lose. AMP was never a battle between users (readers) and Google. It was a battle between _content publishers_ and Google. Nothing has changed when it comes to SE. It's the same old formula just in a new bottle. Unless SE ultimately allows specification of a list of allowed distributors as part of the bundle, framing SE as "just like using a CDN" and that "Google/aggregating site doesn't benefit more from this" is at best a bit ignorant about the power struggles between publishers and aggregators.
- nybble41 4y ago
  > The source page does not have any access to referral data. The source page determines the target of the link and can add whatever tracking data they want to it. You can see from the link target that it's going back to the same site. That is all they need to get the referral data. > It does not _reduce_ the number of sites that gets tracking data. It does, as the source page has the tracking data either way but the publisher's page does not if SE is used. Frankly I'd rather trust Google with that data—they have access to it anyway, through several different channels—than a bunch of publishers I have no other relationship with. > Unless SE ultimately allows specification of a list of allowed distributors as part of the bundle, … It won't matter if the bundle contains a list of "allowed distributors" if user agents don't enforce that restriction. And why would they? They know the content is correct regardless of where it came from due to the signature. Refusing the data won't improve privacy at all, as the server already knows that the link was followed. The only one seeing any benefit here is the publisher, who would get tracking data at the expense of the user's privacy. The user agent doesn't represent the publisher, it represents the user.