3 ms·

a) coarse grained tracking is still tracking, and you're revealing more bits than you might think, here's a good example with current tracking: https://coveryo

a) coarse grained tracking is still tracking, and you're revealing more bits than you might think, here's a good example with current tracking: https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ b) this is just the tip of the camel's nose. Expect the tent to be crowded soon if the topics api gets pushed through c) third party cookies are dying on their own, thankfully. It's not a binary choice, we can reject both the old bad technology and the new bad technology

klabb3 3y ago
> b) this is just the tip of the camel's nose. Expect the tent to be crowded soon if the topics api gets pushed through This. Obviously Google know it’s controversial and rolls it out in the most innocent way possible. This is always the playbook for unpopular changes. The short term goal is clearly to get the infrastructure to be accepted. That’s how I’d do it, after thinking about for 10 seconds.
- Spivak 3y ago
  I guess but it's entirely client side, if it ever becomes too much or you just don't want it to start with you just seed it with static topics and call it a day. It's so so so much better than FLoC.
  - Bu9818 3y ago
    Is this a supported feature by Google, or does it require client modifications/forks? If the latter, with Web Environment Integrity it's conceivable that this may not be possible with many sites in the future.
skybrian 3y ago
Most of the time I don't mind revealing a few bits. I'm logging in to many sites anyway (including Hacker News), and revealing a lot more bits in things like my profile and all the comments I posted here over the years. Opsec isn't an issue because I'm not on some sort of mission. When I want to browse privately I'll do it a different way. We don't know what the future will bring, but if it starts to look iffy, I can turn it off or switch to a different browser later.
- ianai 3y ago
  Not everybody is you and you don’t get to speak for everybody.
  - skybrian 3y ago
    Yes, of course. I'm suggesting that you check it out for yourself and not follow the privacy crowd blindly.
    - gaganyaan 3y ago
      "Following the privacy crowd blindly" is loaded language, and will also do you no harm. Unlike following your suggestions blindly.
      - skybrian 3y ago
        That's a prediction and we don't know the future. One possible scenario is that people install obscure projects by unknown maintainers to "protect their privacy" and get owned. A lot of security products are snake oil.
        gaganyaan 3y ago
        Let me put it differently. Rejecting obviously malicious technology like the topics api because the privacy crowd is as well is a good idea, even if you're "following blindly". Taking your advice is a bad idea, period.
        skybrian 3y ago
        “Obviously malicious” is assuming the conclusion here. This might seem “obvious” because a lot of other people say so. It’s social proof. But looking at it myself, it’s not at all obvious to me.
- xethos 3y ago
  > When I want to browse privately I'll do it a different way. And that's great for you. But a reasonable society at least attempts to look out for the slowest of us. Sometimes that means social assistance, here it means defaulting to protecting people like journalists, those with unpopular (but legal) opinions, people supporting or seeking an abortion, and others looking to not be stalked, either by corporations or former associates. Your ability to protect yourself doesn't make a difference if everyone else is tracked and monitored - either because you are suddenly the only user that needs to be unmasked, or because predicting what people will do, buy, look at, and click on relies on getting most everyone - and not having your exact data isn't going to throw the model off that much. In summation: privacy is a team sport.

klabb3 3y ago

> b) this is just the tip of the camel's nose. Expect the tent to be crowded soon if the topics api gets pushed through This. Obviously Google know it’s controversial and rolls it out in the most innocent way possible. This is always the playbook for unpopular changes. The short term goal is clearly to get the infrastructure to be accepted. That’s how I’d do it, after thinking about for 10 seconds.

Spivak 3y ago
I guess but it's entirely client side, if it ever becomes too much or you just don't want it to start with you just seed it with static topics and call it a day. It's so so so much better than FLoC.
- Bu9818 3y ago
  Is this a supported feature by Google, or does it require client modifications/forks? If the latter, with Web Environment Integrity it's conceivable that this may not be possible with many sites in the future.

skybrian 3y ago

Most of the time I don't mind revealing a few bits. I'm logging in to many sites anyway (including Hacker News), and revealing a lot more bits in things like my profile and all the comments I posted here over the years. Opsec isn't an issue because I'm not on some sort of mission. When I want to browse privately I'll do it a different way. We don't know what the future will bring, but if it starts to look iffy, I can turn it off or switch to a different browser later.

ianai 3y ago
Not everybody is you and you don’t get to speak for everybody.
- skybrian 3y ago
  Yes, of course. I'm suggesting that you check it out for yourself and not follow the privacy crowd blindly.
  - gaganyaan 3y ago
    "Following the privacy crowd blindly" is loaded language, and will also do you no harm. Unlike following your suggestions blindly.
    - skybrian 3y ago
      That's a prediction and we don't know the future. One possible scenario is that people install obscure projects by unknown maintainers to "protect their privacy" and get owned. A lot of security products are snake oil.
      - gaganyaan 3y ago
        Let me put it differently. Rejecting obviously malicious technology like the topics api because the privacy crowd is as well is a good idea, even if you're "following blindly". Taking your advice is a bad idea, period.
        skybrian 3y ago
        “Obviously malicious” is assuming the conclusion here. This might seem “obvious” because a lot of other people say so. It’s social proof. But looking at it myself, it’s not at all obvious to me.
xethos 3y ago
> When I want to browse privately I'll do it a different way. And that's great for you. But a reasonable society at least attempts to look out for the slowest of us. Sometimes that means social assistance, here it means defaulting to protecting people like journalists, those with unpopular (but legal) opinions, people supporting or seeking an abortion, and others looking to not be stalked, either by corporations or former associates. Your ability to protect yourself doesn't make a difference if everyone else is tracked and monitored - either because you are suddenly the only user that needs to be unmasked, or because predicting what people will do, buy, look at, and click on relies on getting most everyone - and not having your exact data isn't going to throw the model off that much. In summation: privacy is a team sport.