7 ms·

Given that Chrome is aggressively pursuing privacy sandbox, which is roundly rejected by everybody in the web privacy community, is aggressively user hostile, a

by nr2x 3y ago

Given that Chrome is aggressively pursuing privacy sandbox, which is roundly rejected by everybody in the web privacy community, is aggressively user hostile, and designed solely as a means to leverage chrome’s (current) dominance to support google ad business, it’s fair to start treating chrome as malware.

AlexandrB 3y ago
What part of this description of privacy sandbox doesn't apply to what Microsoft has been doing with Windows? I think it's time to treat Windows 11 as malware as well.
- rjzzleep 3y ago
  technically those two are not mutually exclusive
evandale 3y ago
Honest question, why is the privacy sandbox user hostile? I assume it's because Google is using it to collect your information but blocking everyone else from collecting it?
- simplotek 3y ago
  > Honest question, why is the privacy sandbox user hostile? From the horse's mouth, "privacy sandbox" is explicitly designed "to build thriving digital businesses." https://privacysandbox.com/intl/en_us/ https://privacysandbox.com/intl/en_us/ At face value they claim it's designed to eliminate tracking techniques like fingerprinting, it's actually a system explicitly designed to collect the users' private information. From the horse's mouth. "To provide this free resource without relying on intrusive tracking, publishers and developers need privacy-preserving alternatives for their key business needs, including serving relevant content and ads."
  - edoceo 3y ago
    So, it's tracking just not intrusive tracking?
    - simplotek 3y ago
      It sounds like it's plain old tracking, but pushed and owned by Google through it's control over Chrome.
      - thewataccount 3y ago
        No it's objectively less intrusive. The proposals involve reducing UA data, ip tracking, etc. But still allows for some amount of targeting. From my understanding instead of you being an identifiable individual via fingerprinting, the aim is to make you "probably one in [large group] of technology people". I'm not saying I think it's a good thing, but on the surface it does appear _better_.
        codedokode 3y ago
        Does Privacy sandbox prevent fingerprinting completely (for example, canvas fingerprinting, WebGL fingerprinting, audio fingerprinting)? Or the advertisers would be able to use both fingerprinting and newly provided data? I don't understand why we need to trade here. Just block figerprinting and do not provide any alternatives for advertisers. This is the best for users.
        None4U 3y ago
        We "need to trade here" because Google is an adtech business
        Paul-Craft 3y ago
        "Just block fingerprinting" is also not trivial to do while providing a good user experience.
- cptskippy 3y ago
  > I assume it's because Google is using it to collect your information but blocking everyone else from collecting it? It isn't so much a privacy sandbox, it's an anti competition sandbox. Google is designing standards and practices under the auspices of user privacy but in reality these changes simply lock others out of accessing data while serving it up to Google. * Not only are they locking out competition, but they're preventing the user from stopping or mitigating collection of data as well.
- devjab 3y ago
  I think you can have a lot of debate on it, but for me personally it can be summoned down to the following: the privacy sandbox wants to block tracking on everything that isn’t of “high user interest”. But as a user I don’t want “any” privacy intrusion. On one hand it’s better than what’s going on now, on the other hand it’s not going to give you privacy and it’s likely going to further Google’s advertisement monopoly on much of the internet. Which is where a lot of the debate can be had, but as a user, do you really want any company to track you? If not, then you most likely don’t want control of who gets to track you in the hands of the biggest advertisement company on earth.
charcircuit 3y ago
How is it user hostile when it protects people's privacy while also meeting the needs of advertisers? It's a win win.
- ocdtrekkie 3y ago
  It is definitely about meeting the needs of advertisers, by implementing new methods to violate user privacy. Every other browser has simply blocked advertisers from collecting this information, but Google is an ad company, and hence is anti-consumer at heart.
- TechBro8615 3y ago
  Because in reality, "meeting the needs of advertisers" is not a prerequisite to "protecting people's privacy." It's a false premise that Google constructed and which only exists because the dominant browser is created by an advertising company. A browser that truly protected people's privacy would definitionally not meet the needs of advertisers, because those needs are in direct opposition to people's need for privacy.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    Protecting people's privacy is not the sole job of a browser. The web in general needs to look at the needs of all of the stakeholders and come together to find a solution that all parties can find agreeable. A browser should care about not just the users, but also the rest of the people in the ecosystem. If Chrome shipped an update that blocked all ads it would kill many sites and would cause a disaster to the health of the web ecosystem. Chrome should try and improve the ecosystem.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > A browser should care about not just the users, but also the rest of the people in the ecosystem. Hard disagree. A browser is supposed to be my user agent. It is supposed to work for me. It should not be engaging in compromises to my wishes in order to benefit others. > Chrome should try and improve the ecosystem. I think that there is much disagreement about what "improving the ecosystem" would look like.
gigel82 3y ago
That's true, but Edge is literally the same codebase and architecture, rebranded and with slightly tweaked UI, plus additional MS tracking. So Edge should get the exact same treatment.
nr2x 3y ago
Since people seemed to believing Google PR at face value here is the w3c position in rejecting the proposal: The intention of the Topics API is to enable high level interests of web users to be shared with third parties in a privacy-preserving way in order to enable targeted advertising, while also protecting users from unwanted tracking and profiling. The TAG's initial view is that this API does not achieve these goals as specified. The Topics API as proposed puts the browser in a position of sharing information about the user, derived from their browsing history, with any site that can call the API. This is done in such a way that the user has no fine-grained control over what is revealed, and in what context, or to which parties. It also seems likely that a user would struggle to understand what is even happening; data is gathered and sent behind the scenes, quite opaquely. This goes against the principle of enhancing the user's control, and we believe is not appropriate behaviour for any software purporting to be an agent of a web user. The responses to the proposal from Webkit and Mozilla highlight the tradeoffs between serving a diverse global population, and adequately protecting the identities of individuals in a given population. Shortcomings on neither side of these tradeoffs are acceptable for web platform technologies. It's also clear from the positions shared by Mozilla and Webkit that there is a lack of multi-stakeholder support. We remain concerned about fragmentation of the user experience if the Topics API is implemented in a limited number of browsers, and sites that wish to use it prevent access to users of browsers without it (a different scenario from the user having disabled it in settings). We are particularly concerned by the opportunities for sites to use additional data gathered over time by the Topics API in conjunction with other data gathered about a site visitor, either via other APIs, via out of band means, and/or via existing tracking technologies in place at the same time, such as fingerprinting. We appreciate the in-depth privacy analyses of the API that have been done so far by Google and by Mozilla. If work on this API is to proceed, it would benefit from further analysis by one or more independant (non-browser engine or adtech) parties. Further, if the API were both effective and privacy-preserving, it could nonetheless be used to customise content in a discriminatory manner, using stereotypes, inferences or assumptions based on the topics revealed (eg. a topic could be used - accurately or not - to infer a protected characteristic, which is thereby used in selecting an advert to show). Relatedly, there is no binary assessment that can be made over whether a topic is "sensitive" or not. This can vary depending on context, the circumstances of the person it relates to, as well as change over time for the same person. Giving the web user access to browser settings to configure which topics can be observed and sent, and from/to which parties, would be a necessary addition to an API such as this, and go some way towards restoring agency of the user, but is by no means sufficient. People can become vulnerable in ways they do not expect, and without notice. People cannot be expected to have a full understanding of every possible topic in the taxonomy as it relates to their personal circumstances, nor of the immediate or knock-on effects of sharing this data with sites and advertisers, and nor can they be expected to continually revise their browser settings as their personal or global circumstances change. A portion of topics returned by the API are proposed to be randomised, in part to enable plausible deniability of the results. The usefulness of this mitigation may be limited in practice; an individual who wants to explain away an inappropriate ad served on a shared computer cannot be expected to understand the low level workings of a specific browser API in a contentious, dangerous or embarrassing situation (assuming a general cultural awareness of the idea of targeted ads being served based on your online activities or even being "listened to" by your devices, which does not exist everywhere, but is certainly pervasive in some places/communities). While we appreciate the efforts that have gone into this proposal aiming to iteratively improve the privacy-preserving possibilities of targeted advertising, ultimately it falls short. In summary, the proposed API appears to maintain the status quo of inappropriate surveillence on the web, and we do not want to see it proceed further. https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/726#issuecomment-1379908459 https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/726#issuecom...

by nr2x 3y ago

AlexandrB 3y ago

What part of this description of privacy sandbox doesn't apply to what Microsoft has been doing with Windows? I think it's time to treat Windows 11 as malware as well.

rjzzleep 3y ago
technically those two are not mutually exclusive

evandale 3y ago

Honest question, why is the privacy sandbox user hostile? I assume it's because Google is using it to collect your information but blocking everyone else from collecting it?

simplotek 3y ago
> Honest question, why is the privacy sandbox user hostile? From the horse's mouth, "privacy sandbox" is explicitly designed "to build thriving digital businesses." https://privacysandbox.com/intl/en_us/ https://privacysandbox.com/intl/en_us/ At face value they claim it's designed to eliminate tracking techniques like fingerprinting, it's actually a system explicitly designed to collect the users' private information. From the horse's mouth. "To provide this free resource without relying on intrusive tracking, publishers and developers need privacy-preserving alternatives for their key business needs, including serving relevant content and ads."
- edoceo 3y ago
  So, it's tracking just not intrusive tracking?
  - simplotek 3y ago
    It sounds like it's plain old tracking, but pushed and owned by Google through it's control over Chrome.
    - thewataccount 3y ago
      No it's objectively less intrusive. The proposals involve reducing UA data, ip tracking, etc. But still allows for some amount of targeting. From my understanding instead of you being an identifiable individual via fingerprinting, the aim is to make you "probably one in [large group] of technology people". I'm not saying I think it's a good thing, but on the surface it does appear _better_.
      - codedokode 3y ago
        Does Privacy sandbox prevent fingerprinting completely (for example, canvas fingerprinting, WebGL fingerprinting, audio fingerprinting)? Or the advertisers would be able to use both fingerprinting and newly provided data? I don't understand why we need to trade here. Just block figerprinting and do not provide any alternatives for advertisers. This is the best for users.
        None4U 3y ago
        We "need to trade here" because Google is an adtech business
        Paul-Craft 3y ago
        "Just block fingerprinting" is also not trivial to do while providing a good user experience.
cptskippy 3y ago
> I assume it's because Google is using it to collect your information but blocking everyone else from collecting it? It isn't so much a privacy sandbox, it's an anti competition sandbox. Google is designing standards and practices under the auspices of user privacy but in reality these changes simply lock others out of accessing data while serving it up to Google. * Not only are they locking out competition, but they're preventing the user from stopping or mitigating collection of data as well.
devjab 3y ago
I think you can have a lot of debate on it, but for me personally it can be summoned down to the following: the privacy sandbox wants to block tracking on everything that isn’t of “high user interest”. But as a user I don’t want “any” privacy intrusion. On one hand it’s better than what’s going on now, on the other hand it’s not going to give you privacy and it’s likely going to further Google’s advertisement monopoly on much of the internet. Which is where a lot of the debate can be had, but as a user, do you really want any company to track you? If not, then you most likely don’t want control of who gets to track you in the hands of the biggest advertisement company on earth.

charcircuit 3y ago

How is it user hostile when it protects people's privacy while also meeting the needs of advertisers? It's a win win.

ocdtrekkie 3y ago
It is definitely about meeting the needs of advertisers, by implementing new methods to violate user privacy. Every other browser has simply blocked advertisers from collecting this information, but Google is an ad company, and hence is anti-consumer at heart.
TechBro8615 3y ago
Because in reality, "meeting the needs of advertisers" is not a prerequisite to "protecting people's privacy." It's a false premise that Google constructed and which only exists because the dominant browser is created by an advertising company. A browser that truly protected people's privacy would definitionally not meet the needs of advertisers, because those needs are in direct opposition to people's need for privacy.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  Protecting people's privacy is not the sole job of a browser. The web in general needs to look at the needs of all of the stakeholders and come together to find a solution that all parties can find agreeable. A browser should care about not just the users, but also the rest of the people in the ecosystem. If Chrome shipped an update that blocked all ads it would kill many sites and would cause a disaster to the health of the web ecosystem. Chrome should try and improve the ecosystem.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > A browser should care about not just the users, but also the rest of the people in the ecosystem. Hard disagree. A browser is supposed to be my user agent. It is supposed to work for me. It should not be engaging in compromises to my wishes in order to benefit others. > Chrome should try and improve the ecosystem. I think that there is much disagreement about what "improving the ecosystem" would look like.

gigel82 3y ago

That's true, but Edge is literally the same codebase and architecture, rebranded and with slightly tweaked UI, plus additional MS tracking. So Edge should get the exact same treatment.

nr2x 3y ago

Since people seemed to believing Google PR at face value here is the w3c position in rejecting the proposal: The intention of the Topics API is to enable high level interests of web users to be shared with third parties in a privacy-preserving way in order to enable targeted advertising, while also protecting users from unwanted tracking and profiling. The TAG's initial view is that this API does not achieve these goals as specified. The Topics API as proposed puts the browser in a position of sharing information about the user, derived from their browsing history, with any site that can call the API. This is done in such a way that the user has no fine-grained control over what is revealed, and in what context, or to which parties. It also seems likely that a user would struggle to understand what is even happening; data is gathered and sent behind the scenes, quite opaquely. This goes against the principle of enhancing the user's control, and we believe is not appropriate behaviour for any software purporting to be an agent of a web user. The responses to the proposal from Webkit and Mozilla highlight the tradeoffs between serving a diverse global population, and adequately protecting the identities of individuals in a given population. Shortcomings on neither side of these tradeoffs are acceptable for web platform technologies. It's also clear from the positions shared by Mozilla and Webkit that there is a lack of multi-stakeholder support. We remain concerned about fragmentation of the user experience if the Topics API is implemented in a limited number of browsers, and sites that wish to use it prevent access to users of browsers without it (a different scenario from the user having disabled it in settings). We are particularly concerned by the opportunities for sites to use additional data gathered over time by the Topics API in conjunction with other data gathered about a site visitor, either via other APIs, via out of band means, and/or via existing tracking technologies in place at the same time, such as fingerprinting. We appreciate the in-depth privacy analyses of the API that have been done so far by Google and by Mozilla. If work on this API is to proceed, it would benefit from further analysis by one or more independant (non-browser engine or adtech) parties. Further, if the API were both effective and privacy-preserving, it could nonetheless be used to customise content in a discriminatory manner, using stereotypes, inferences or assumptions based on the topics revealed (eg. a topic could be used - accurately or not - to infer a protected characteristic, which is thereby used in selecting an advert to show). Relatedly, there is no binary assessment that can be made over whether a topic is "sensitive" or not. This can vary depending on context, the circumstances of the person it relates to, as well as change over time for the same person. Giving the web user access to browser settings to configure which topics can be observed and sent, and from/to which parties, would be a necessary addition to an API such as this, and go some way towards restoring agency of the user, but is by no means sufficient. People can become vulnerable in ways they do not expect, and without notice. People cannot be expected to have a full understanding of every possible topic in the taxonomy as it relates to their personal circumstances, nor of the immediate or knock-on effects of sharing this data with sites and advertisers, and nor can they be expected to continually revise their browser settings as their personal or global circumstances change. A portion of topics returned by the API are proposed to be randomised, in part to enable plausible deniability of the results. The usefulness of this mitigation may be limited in practice; an individual who wants to explain away an inappropriate ad served on a shared computer cannot be expected to understand the low level workings of a specific browser API in a contentious, dangerous or embarrassing situation (assuming a general cultural awareness of the idea of targeted ads being served based on your online activities or even being "listened to" by your devices, which does not exist everywhere, but is certainly pervasive in some places/communities). While we appreciate the efforts that have gone into this proposal aiming to iteratively improve the privacy-preserving possibilities of targeted advertising, ultimately it falls short. In summary, the proposed API appears to maintain the status quo of inappropriate surveillence on the web, and we do not want to see it proceed further. https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/726#issuecomment-1379908459 https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/726#issuecom...