4 ms·

WebGPU is used (among other usage) for user browser fingerprinting. Which is very useful for ads personalizing. Which is the main profit source of Google who (e

by zx8080 3y ago

WebGPU is used (among other usage) for user browser fingerprinting. Which is very useful for ads personalizing. Which is the main profit source of Google who (effectively) owns the Chromium project. > Surely, clicking OK on the two or three websites that actually have a use case for WebGPU should be an acceptable trade-off? This would not be an acceptable tradeoff since the dialog will fire on _every web site_. Google et all will never allow it to be asked as it could hurt their main profit source.

jauntywundrkind 3y ago
Does anyone have a single shred of evidence that Google is doing any kind of fingerprinting? It's the web. You can see what's happening, follow the code as it runs. Has anyone found a single shred of evidence that big bad hated evil Google is doing any of these casually cast about nasty vicious accusations? Yes Google runs ads, and makes most of its money that way. But it needs to play a clean game & keep the web stable & trustable if that revenue stream is to survive. These conjectures that earning another 10% by setting fire to your house don't make sense. They never have. But it's what our underdog bias makes us want to believe.
- funcDropShadow 3y ago
  > It's the web. For most people it's Google's web. You can't see anything Chrome is doing if Google doesn't want you to see it.
  - jauntywundrkind 3y ago
    Personally this reads like a descent into madness, a conspiratorial minded terror/Fear Uncertainty and Doubt stark-world outlook that actuvely seeks to erode away reality for it's preferred sense of what is. There's just not evidence we really have much to fear here. Yes Chrome is closed source, but it seems to pretty closely resemble Chromium. Yes Chrome is closed source but there are people very good at Ghidra (& others softwares) would be be delighted to find sneaky scary shit happening. These assertions feel baseless. It feels the opposite of the truth. Chrome is perhaps the most observable software development process on the planet. They follow their process, which involves - before any code gets written - writing explainers, bringing Early Design Reviews to W3C TAG, and then posting request-for-position review from everyone else. What software on the planet does more to pace a golden path, has a higher level of visibility, review, and regard than this? https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/ https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/
    - hulitu 3y ago
      > There's just not evidence we really have much to fear here. Famous last words.
lxgr 3y ago
Google has little to gain and incredibly much to lose from doing anything as heavy-handed and transparently shady as actually doing that type of fingerprinting on the web. And why would they? They control the majority of users' browsers and can push through things that expand their advantage in plain sight, like Privacy Sandbox, Manifest V3 etc.
jeroenhd 3y ago
Google doesn't need to fingerprint your browser this way. I have permission prompts enabled for canvas access (the most common form of Javascript fingerprinting) and Google doesn't even use that. Why would they? The vast majority of the internet is sending them unique identifiers along with every page load already. > This would not be an acceptable tradeoff since the dialog will fire on _every web site_. Sounds like a good reason to use the same approach as with notifications (disabled by default on most websites).

by zx8080 3y ago

jauntywundrkind 3y ago

Does anyone have a single shred of evidence that Google is doing any kind of fingerprinting? It's the web. You can see what's happening, follow the code as it runs. Has anyone found a single shred of evidence that big bad hated evil Google is doing any of these casually cast about nasty vicious accusations? Yes Google runs ads, and makes most of its money that way. But it needs to play a clean game & keep the web stable & trustable if that revenue stream is to survive. These conjectures that earning another 10% by setting fire to your house don't make sense. They never have. But it's what our underdog bias makes us want to believe.

funcDropShadow 3y ago
> It's the web. For most people it's Google's web. You can't see anything Chrome is doing if Google doesn't want you to see it.
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  Personally this reads like a descent into madness, a conspiratorial minded terror/Fear Uncertainty and Doubt stark-world outlook that actuvely seeks to erode away reality for it's preferred sense of what is. There's just not evidence we really have much to fear here. Yes Chrome is closed source, but it seems to pretty closely resemble Chromium. Yes Chrome is closed source but there are people very good at Ghidra (& others softwares) would be be delighted to find sneaky scary shit happening. These assertions feel baseless. It feels the opposite of the truth. Chrome is perhaps the most observable software development process on the planet. They follow their process, which involves - before any code gets written - writing explainers, bringing Early Design Reviews to W3C TAG, and then posting request-for-position review from everyone else. What software on the planet does more to pace a golden path, has a higher level of visibility, review, and regard than this? https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/ https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/
  - hulitu 3y ago
    > There's just not evidence we really have much to fear here. Famous last words.

lxgr 3y ago

Google has little to gain and incredibly much to lose from doing anything as heavy-handed and transparently shady as actually doing that type of fingerprinting on the web. And why would they? They control the majority of users' browsers and can push through things that expand their advantage in plain sight, like Privacy Sandbox, Manifest V3 etc.

jeroenhd 3y ago

Google doesn't need to fingerprint your browser this way. I have permission prompts enabled for canvas access (the most common form of Javascript fingerprinting) and Google doesn't even use that. Why would they? The vast majority of the internet is sending them unique identifiers along with every page load already. > This would not be an acceptable tradeoff since the dialog will fire on _every web site_. Sounds like a good reason to use the same approach as with notifications (disabled by default on most websites).