8 ms·

There's some good context in the Mozilla kb article on this feature: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution https://support.mozilla

There's some good context in the Mozilla kb article on this feature: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attr...

lopis 2y ago
I actually think this is a great initiative. Let's be honest, ads and ad tracking is not going anywhere, and Mozilla is trying to come up with a version of that which isn't terrible. And this sounds reasonable.
- Xelbair 2y ago
  > Let's be honest, ads and ad tracking is not going anywhere Citation needed.
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  > Let's be honest, ads and ad tracking is not going anywhere True, they're not going anywhere on my systems since they get stopped at the gates; not one but many gates, defence in depth is the norm when dealing with vermin. We will fight them at the router, we will fight them in the name services, we will fight them at the firewall and in the applications. Wherever they come, we shall be. We will never surrender. The ad industry can blame itself for this, they have shown themselves to be reliably unreliable and are no longer welcome.
- michaelt 2y ago
  > Let's be honest, ads and ad tracking is not going anywhere Sure they are - just install ublock origin. Even if you're OK with the snooping and the attention hijacking and the slow pageloads and the pictures of rotting teeth, plenty of malware has been delivered by inept ad networks. Frankly, I find it strange when someone doesn't block ads.
  - cjpearson 2y ago
    Ads as a revenue model is not going anywhere even if you personally block them. I'm also a ublock origin user. But it only works because most people in the world are not ublock origin users. I view no ads and am subsidized by the users who do.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    ublock is a tiny fraction of users. If it became ubiquitous, online advertising would respond with something more embedded in the content and harder to block out.
    - account42 2y ago
      > online advertising would respond with something more embedded in the content and harder to block out And less profitable, otherwise they would already be doing that now. In other words: a step in the right direction.
      - shadowgovt 2y ago
        Is it a step in the right direction? What are the consequences of pulling money out of the advertising industry?
  - JW_00000 2y ago
    To play the devil's advocate: if everyone did that, there would be almost no more free websites. So much of the internet is paid for through ads.
    - haileys 2y ago
      > So much of the internet is paid for through ads. And look where it's gotten us.
    - account42 2y ago
      > if everyone did that, there would be almost no more free websites Wrong. Let's ignore for the moment that ad-funded websites are not free but only pretend to be free (the average user pays eventually, otherwise ads would not make sense for the advertiser), non-commercial websites have existed longer than ad-funded ones. If anything, making "free" profitable invites profiteers that produce mediocre content but know how to out-SEO genuine free websites. > So much of the internet is paid for through ads. And the best thing for the Internet is if that part came crashing down. But even for the ad-supported part of the web, almost all of the actual content is generated by unpaid users.
    - madeofpalk 2y ago
      The devil doensn't need an advocate. If this is your opinion, stand behind it. If you don't believe it, then why say it?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - KevinGlass 2y ago
      You have no idea how I LONG for a return to that. I DEEPLY wish every single person would install an ad blocker. If ad supported slop went under that would leave us with just paid and passion projects, and we would be far better off for it.
  - lopis 2y ago
    When you close your blinds, the sun doesn't go away.
- account42 2y ago
  Well since theft is also not going anywhere would you be OK with the police helping thieves as long as they make sure the thieves don't damage your house while taking your stuff? Why do you think the advertising industry is pushing for this kind of crap? Because they ARE scared that the world is finally waking up to them and making their business effectively illegal.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    I mean you're basically describing how people will leave their cars unlocked so that thieves won't break their windows. Or TSA keys so they won't cut your locks when inspecting your luggage.
  - madeofpalk 2y ago
    I mean, this is the idea behind legalising weed and injections sites
    - jampekka 2y ago
      And tax evasion.
      - AwaAwa 2y ago
        Tax evasion is legal?
        account42 2y ago
        Depends on your definition of tax evasion. It is either tautologically illegal or there are legal forms of tax evasion: any way that means someone is not paying their fair share of taxes.
    - g15jv2dp 2y ago
      Who's the victim when someone steals something from your house? Who's the victim when someone does drugs? You cannot compare the two.
progval 2y ago
Some more technical details: https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experiment https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experime...
- fwn 2y ago
  That is a wild explainer. They deny any direct benefit for the user, and then go on to list some actual downsides (CPU, network, and battery cost & privacy loss) for the user running their software. > Any benefit people derive from this feature is indirect. [By] Making advertising better Mozilla never fails to surprise by the choice of their alliances. > Our view is that the costs that people incur as a result of supporting attribution is small. [...] In comparison [...] The value that an advertiser gains from attribution is enormous. What would we all do without Mozilla saving dystopian corporate propaganda from the dreadful death through user choice?
shiandow 2y ago
Overall that seems decent as far as privacy is concerned, though there are 2 things I don't like about it. 1. It relies on an 'aggregation service', which you'd better hope is trustworthy because they seemingly get all info about what 'impressions' you had and what 'conversions' you caused. 2. This is the browser acting on behalf of advertisers. It's nice there's a way for people to help companies benchmark their ads, but this really shouldn't be something a user agent does without being explicitly told to.
- buildfocus 2y ago
  It uses multiple aggregation services, each of which get only partial data for each event, such that no individual service can track you, even if they wanted to. Initially the two aggregators are run by Mozilla and ISRG - your privacy is at risk only if you think both are malicious and actively sharing all the data between each other to track you. As the number of aggregators increases this gets better - as long as you trust at least one aggregators involved then your individual data remains untrackable. Also, in general if you think Mozilla is likely to _actively_ lie to you to steal your data and track you, you're probably using the wrong browser in the first place and the aggregation service makes little difference.
  - freeAgent 2y ago
    Given how our data circulates around the web’s data brokers, it doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to see that the risk of aggregators colluding the de-anonymize people is actually quite high.

lopis 2y ago

I actually think this is a great initiative. Let's be honest, ads and ad tracking is not going anywhere, and Mozilla is trying to come up with a version of that which isn't terrible. And this sounds reasonable.

Xelbair 2y ago
> Let's be honest, ads and ad tracking is not going anywhere Citation needed.
hagbard_c 2y ago
> Let's be honest, ads and ad tracking is not going anywhere True, they're not going anywhere on my systems since they get stopped at the gates; not one but many gates, defence in depth is the norm when dealing with vermin. We will fight them at the router, we will fight them in the name services, we will fight them at the firewall and in the applications. Wherever they come, we shall be. We will never surrender. The ad industry can blame itself for this, they have shown themselves to be reliably unreliable and are no longer welcome.
michaelt 2y ago
> Let's be honest, ads and ad tracking is not going anywhere Sure they are - just install ublock origin. Even if you're OK with the snooping and the attention hijacking and the slow pageloads and the pictures of rotting teeth, plenty of malware has been delivered by inept ad networks. Frankly, I find it strange when someone doesn't block ads.
- cjpearson 2y ago
  Ads as a revenue model is not going anywhere even if you personally block them. I'm also a ublock origin user. But it only works because most people in the world are not ublock origin users. I view no ads and am subsidized by the users who do.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  ublock is a tiny fraction of users. If it became ubiquitous, online advertising would respond with something more embedded in the content and harder to block out.
  - account42 2y ago
    > online advertising would respond with something more embedded in the content and harder to block out And less profitable, otherwise they would already be doing that now. In other words: a step in the right direction.
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      Is it a step in the right direction? What are the consequences of pulling money out of the advertising industry?
- JW_00000 2y ago
  To play the devil's advocate: if everyone did that, there would be almost no more free websites. So much of the internet is paid for through ads.
  - haileys 2y ago
    > So much of the internet is paid for through ads. And look where it's gotten us.
  - account42 2y ago
    > if everyone did that, there would be almost no more free websites Wrong. Let's ignore for the moment that ad-funded websites are not free but only pretend to be free (the average user pays eventually, otherwise ads would not make sense for the advertiser), non-commercial websites have existed longer than ad-funded ones. If anything, making "free" profitable invites profiteers that produce mediocre content but know how to out-SEO genuine free websites. > So much of the internet is paid for through ads. And the best thing for the Internet is if that part came crashing down. But even for the ad-supported part of the web, almost all of the actual content is generated by unpaid users.
  - madeofpalk 2y ago
    The devil doensn't need an advocate. If this is your opinion, stand behind it. If you don't believe it, then why say it?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - KevinGlass 2y ago
    You have no idea how I LONG for a return to that. I DEEPLY wish every single person would install an ad blocker. If ad supported slop went under that would leave us with just paid and passion projects, and we would be far better off for it.
- lopis 2y ago
  When you close your blinds, the sun doesn't go away.
account42 2y ago
Well since theft is also not going anywhere would you be OK with the police helping thieves as long as they make sure the thieves don't damage your house while taking your stuff? Why do you think the advertising industry is pushing for this kind of crap? Because they ARE scared that the world is finally waking up to them and making their business effectively illegal.
- Spivak 2y ago
  I mean you're basically describing how people will leave their cars unlocked so that thieves won't break their windows. Or TSA keys so they won't cut your locks when inspecting your luggage.
- madeofpalk 2y ago
  I mean, this is the idea behind legalising weed and injections sites
  - jampekka 2y ago
    And tax evasion.
    - AwaAwa 2y ago
      Tax evasion is legal?
      - account42 2y ago
        Depends on your definition of tax evasion. It is either tautologically illegal or there are legal forms of tax evasion: any way that means someone is not paying their fair share of taxes.
  - g15jv2dp 2y ago
    Who's the victim when someone steals something from your house? Who's the victim when someone does drugs? You cannot compare the two.

progval 2y ago

Some more technical details: https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experiment https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experime...

fwn 2y ago
That is a wild explainer. They deny any direct benefit for the user, and then go on to list some actual downsides (CPU, network, and battery cost & privacy loss) for the user running their software. > Any benefit people derive from this feature is indirect. [By] Making advertising better Mozilla never fails to surprise by the choice of their alliances. > Our view is that the costs that people incur as a result of supporting attribution is small. [...] In comparison [...] The value that an advertiser gains from attribution is enormous. What would we all do without Mozilla saving dystopian corporate propaganda from the dreadful death through user choice?

shiandow 2y ago

Overall that seems decent as far as privacy is concerned, though there are 2 things I don't like about it. 1. It relies on an 'aggregation service', which you'd better hope is trustworthy because they seemingly get all info about what 'impressions' you had and what 'conversions' you caused. 2. This is the browser acting on behalf of advertisers. It's nice there's a way for people to help companies benchmark their ads, but this really shouldn't be something a user agent does without being explicitly told to.

buildfocus 2y ago
It uses multiple aggregation services, each of which get only partial data for each event, such that no individual service can track you, even if they wanted to. Initially the two aggregators are run by Mozilla and ISRG - your privacy is at risk only if you think both are malicious and actively sharing all the data between each other to track you. As the number of aggregators increases this gets better - as long as you trust at least one aggregators involved then your individual data remains untrackable. Also, in general if you think Mozilla is likely to _actively_ lie to you to steal your data and track you, you're probably using the wrong browser in the first place and the aggregation service makes little difference.
- freeAgent 2y ago
  Given how our data circulates around the web’s data brokers, it doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to see that the risk of aggregators colluding the de-anonymize people is actually quite high.