5 ms·

I don't mean to support or refuse the author's main points or analysis, but you might like to know that the Chrome team is currently working towards shipping th

I don't mean to support or refuse the author's main points or analysis, but you might like to know that the Chrome team is currently working towards shipping the Topics API. I have strong opinions about it but I will try not to editorialize. My high-level understanding is that they're going to run an ML model over your browsing history (locally on your device) to build a list of "topics" that you care about. Sites you browse can use the Topics API to pull a set of these interests from the browser to show you "relevant" ads. Mozilla has taken a negative position against this standard. https://privacysandbox.com/proposals/topics/ https://privacysandbox.com/proposals/topics/ https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/622 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/622

afavour 3y ago
How is that relevant to the topic?
- Santosh83 3y ago
  You asked: >> Chrome will happily collect as much private information about me and my browsing history and share them with select parties, as needed > What information does Chrome provide in this scenario that Firefox doesn’t?
  - afavour 3y ago
    Key words: "in this scenario" Is Cloudflare using an as yet unshipped API as part of DDOS protection?
    - smolder 3y ago
      No, the idea is they're abusing existing APIs for fingerprinting purposes that Firefox privacy settings disallow --canvas font rendering difference detection, detecting your GPU model, and things of that nature. But this new API demonstrates that Google is not on the consumers side when it comes to limiting tracking/data gathering ability, as the new API is explicitly for fingerprinting.
      - dcow 3y ago
        I thought it was the opposite: that instead of fingerprinting users, web services would instead just ask the browser which topics the user is interested in and display the relevant ADs. It's an explicit design goal to reduce the dependence on fingerprinting users, otherwise why would they do it. Topics are supposed to be the locally sourced privacy preserving alternative to invasive tracking. Whether Mozilla/Apple/others agree is a different story. The blowback has mostly been around how topics aren't perfect and the design still leaves room for abuse and therefor effectively devolves to traditional tracking: https://mozilla.github.io/ppa-docs/topics.pdf https://mozilla.github.io/ppa-docs/topics.pdf.
        youngtaff 3y ago
        For me the issue is a browser shouldn’t be making the information on the topics of sites I visit available to anyone who asks
        dcow 3y ago
        Browsers don’t do that today and the result is that AD networks fingerprint and track you to try and serve you more relevant content. The argument from supporters is that this is a step away from the “fingerprint and track” status quo MO. The argument from detractors is that it doesn't quite achieve that goal. All you need to address your concern is for access to the API to be user-configurable.
        account42 3y ago
        Anyone who believes that ad networks won't continue to do fingerprinting in addition to whatever privacy leaks Chrome adds is a fool.
        dcow 3y ago
        Not if browsers actually limit access to that data needed to do so.
        3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

afavour 3y ago

How is that relevant to the topic?

Santosh83 3y ago
You asked: >> Chrome will happily collect as much private information about me and my browsing history and share them with select parties, as needed > What information does Chrome provide in this scenario that Firefox doesn’t?
- afavour 3y ago
  Key words: "in this scenario" Is Cloudflare using an as yet unshipped API as part of DDOS protection?
  - smolder 3y ago
    No, the idea is they're abusing existing APIs for fingerprinting purposes that Firefox privacy settings disallow --canvas font rendering difference detection, detecting your GPU model, and things of that nature. But this new API demonstrates that Google is not on the consumers side when it comes to limiting tracking/data gathering ability, as the new API is explicitly for fingerprinting.
    - dcow 3y ago
      I thought it was the opposite: that instead of fingerprinting users, web services would instead just ask the browser which topics the user is interested in and display the relevant ADs. It's an explicit design goal to reduce the dependence on fingerprinting users, otherwise why would they do it. Topics are supposed to be the locally sourced privacy preserving alternative to invasive tracking. Whether Mozilla/Apple/others agree is a different story. The blowback has mostly been around how topics aren't perfect and the design still leaves room for abuse and therefor effectively devolves to traditional tracking: https://mozilla.github.io/ppa-docs/topics.pdf https://mozilla.github.io/ppa-docs/topics.pdf.
      - youngtaff 3y ago
        For me the issue is a browser shouldn’t be making the information on the topics of sites I visit available to anyone who asks
        dcow 3y ago
        Browsers don’t do that today and the result is that AD networks fingerprint and track you to try and serve you more relevant content. The argument from supporters is that this is a step away from the “fingerprint and track” status quo MO. The argument from detractors is that it doesn't quite achieve that goal. All you need to address your concern is for access to the API to be user-configurable.
        account42 3y ago
        Anyone who believes that ad networks won't continue to do fingerprinting in addition to whatever privacy leaks Chrome adds is a fool.
        dcow 3y ago
        Not if browsers actually limit access to that data needed to do so.
        3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]