3 ms·

First party sets are a centralized list of sites that act as one logical site. The list is gated by the browser vendor. Details here (https://github.com/GoogleC

First party sets are a centralized list of sites that act as one logical site. The list is gated by the browser vendor. Details here (https://github.com/GoogleChrome/first-party-sets/blob/main/FPS-Submission_Guidelines.md https://github.com/GoogleChrome/first-party-sets/blob/main/F...). This is intended to deal with several technical challenges (https://github.com/WICG/first-party-sets#use-cases https://github.com/WICG/first-party-sets#use-cases), such as the technical challenge that when company A buys company B, the process of fusing the auth rules so that being logged into A implies a login to B is a colossal nightmare project under first-party-only rules. So, for example, this lets Facebook declare that instagram.com is in the same FPS as facebook.com to simplify the auth story. What it should not allow is for joe-random-domain.com to declare that the DoubleClick ad endpoints are first-party to them.

GauntletWizard 4y ago
There are already reasonable ways to proactively or unproactively copy session-cookies from one domain to another one that shares a backend. What does this solve except saving a roundtrip when you visit google.co.kr?
maccard 4y ago
> What it should not allow is for joe-random-domain.com to declare that the DoubleClick ad endpoints are first-party to them. But it lets Google declare that doubleclick is part of them.
- ikiris 4y ago
  You mean the company that's been part of Google for near 20 years? Like I don't like tracking either, but this is kind of the point of the first party thing. They're clearly the same party.
  - maccard 4y ago
    I do. This now means that double-click can treat my google.com cookies as first party cookies whwther I as a user want them to or not. I know that's the intention, and I'm not ok with that.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      What tracking capability do you think treating DoubleClick cookies as first party on Google sites gives Google that they don't already have by just combining the logs from visits to google.com, youtube.com, etc., since all of those logs are stored in the same data warehouse and can be cross-compared?
- ahahahahah 4y ago
  doubleclick is part of them.

GauntletWizard 4y ago

There are already reasonable ways to proactively or unproactively copy session-cookies from one domain to another one that shares a backend. What does this solve except saving a roundtrip when you visit google.co.kr?

maccard 4y ago

> What it should not allow is for joe-random-domain.com to declare that the DoubleClick ad endpoints are first-party to them. But it lets Google declare that doubleclick is part of them.

ikiris 4y ago
You mean the company that's been part of Google for near 20 years? Like I don't like tracking either, but this is kind of the point of the first party thing. They're clearly the same party.
- maccard 4y ago
  I do. This now means that double-click can treat my google.com cookies as first party cookies whwther I as a user want them to or not. I know that's the intention, and I'm not ok with that.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    What tracking capability do you think treating DoubleClick cookies as first party on Google sites gives Google that they don't already have by just combining the logs from visits to google.com, youtube.com, etc., since all of those logs are stored in the same data warehouse and can be cross-compared?
ahahahahah 4y ago
doubleclick is part of them.