5 ms·

My impression is: * These guys are truly working very hard at guaranteeing privacy; * That will probably break some websites (I'm trying out the advanced trac

by dash2 2y ago

My impression is: * These guys are truly working very hard at guaranteeing privacy; * That will probably break some websites (I'm trying out the advanced tracking protection in normal mode, we'll see). * It will also put them on collision with Google, which is essentially an advertising shop with a free browser frontend.

lern_too_spel 2y ago
From the article: > Alongside the new suite of enhanced privacy protections in Private Browsing, Safari also brings a version of Web AdAttributionKit to Private Browsing. This is worse for privacy. No other browser does this. No other browser even lets you opt in for this because it's so nonsensical.
- nerdjon 2y ago
  > This is worse for privacy. That seems like an exaggeration? How could another solution possibly be worse for privacy than the open season it was previously... The worst it could be is the same. > No other browser even lets you opt in for this because it's so nonsensical. That also does not seem true Google has their topics API: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/new-in-chrome-115/#topics-api https://developer.chrome.com/blog/new-in-chrome-115/#topics-... and according to another poster here, Firefox added something similar. Don't get me wrong, I hate that they had to make these concessions, but what was their choice? If they did not give something (while giving users the ability to opt out) we would have seen browsers being blocked (and no way Google was going to not do something given their entire business is ads, so they could just keep saying use Chrome).
  - lern_too_spel 2y ago
    > How could another solution possibly be worse for privacy than the open season it was previously... Previously, there was no ad tracking at all in private mode. > That also does not seem true No other browser enables any such tracking in private mode or incognito mode. https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/relevance/attribution-reporting#:~:text=The%20API%20is%20not%20active,third%2Dparty%20cookies%20are%20disabled https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/relevance/attr.... The Topics API you mentioned returns empty topics in incognito mode. https://clearcode.cc/blog/google-chrome-topics-explained/#:~:text=If%20a%20user%20is%20in,identified%2C%20especially%20across%20different%20websites https://clearcode.cc/blog/google-chrome-topics-explained/#:~.... > but what was their choice? Do what other browsers do. Don't enable ad tracking in private mode.
    - dialup_sounds 2y ago
      > there was no ad tracking at all in private mode The post is about ways that tracking was previously possible in private mode that have now been blocked.
      - lern_too_spel 2y ago
        And about ad tracking that wasn't possible before in private mode without risking lawsuits (https://legalweb.io/en/news-en/browser-fingerprinting-and-the-gdpr/#:~:text=What%20does%20this%20mean%20for,consented%20to%20the%20data%20collection https://legalweb.io/en/news-en/browser-fingerprinting-and-th...) that has now been enabled. This form of tracking is far more prevalent.
        dialup_sounds 2y ago
        That's just plain wrong. The thing PCM/PPA enables is tracking ad performance without tracking individual users. It is the polar opposite of browser fingerprinting.
        lern_too_spel 2y ago
        You plain read my comment wrong. The things that Apple prevents (like the changes to make fingerprinting harder) are already illegal in enough markets that no big player is doing it. The tracking that Apple enabled is tracking that everybody does. The net effect is a reduction in privacy in private mode.

by dash2 2y ago

lern_too_spel 2y ago

From the article: > Alongside the new suite of enhanced privacy protections in Private Browsing, Safari also brings a version of Web AdAttributionKit to Private Browsing. This is worse for privacy. No other browser does this. No other browser even lets you opt in for this because it's so nonsensical.

nerdjon 2y ago
> This is worse for privacy. That seems like an exaggeration? How could another solution possibly be worse for privacy than the open season it was previously... The worst it could be is the same. > No other browser even lets you opt in for this because it's so nonsensical. That also does not seem true Google has their topics API: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/new-in-chrome-115/#topics-api https://developer.chrome.com/blog/new-in-chrome-115/#topics-... and according to another poster here, Firefox added something similar. Don't get me wrong, I hate that they had to make these concessions, but what was their choice? If they did not give something (while giving users the ability to opt out) we would have seen browsers being blocked (and no way Google was going to not do something given their entire business is ads, so they could just keep saying use Chrome).
- lern_too_spel 2y ago
  > How could another solution possibly be worse for privacy than the open season it was previously... Previously, there was no ad tracking at all in private mode. > That also does not seem true No other browser enables any such tracking in private mode or incognito mode. https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/relevance/attribution-reporting#:~:text=The%20API%20is%20not%20active,third%2Dparty%20cookies%20are%20disabled https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/relevance/attr.... The Topics API you mentioned returns empty topics in incognito mode. https://clearcode.cc/blog/google-chrome-topics-explained/#:~:text=If%20a%20user%20is%20in,identified%2C%20especially%20across%20different%20websites https://clearcode.cc/blog/google-chrome-topics-explained/#:~.... > but what was their choice? Do what other browsers do. Don't enable ad tracking in private mode.
  - dialup_sounds 2y ago
    > there was no ad tracking at all in private mode The post is about ways that tracking was previously possible in private mode that have now been blocked.
    - lern_too_spel 2y ago
      And about ad tracking that wasn't possible before in private mode without risking lawsuits (https://legalweb.io/en/news-en/browser-fingerprinting-and-the-gdpr/#:~:text=What%20does%20this%20mean%20for,consented%20to%20the%20data%20collection https://legalweb.io/en/news-en/browser-fingerprinting-and-th...) that has now been enabled. This form of tracking is far more prevalent.
      - dialup_sounds 2y ago
        That's just plain wrong. The thing PCM/PPA enables is tracking ad performance without tracking individual users. It is the polar opposite of browser fingerprinting.
        lern_too_spel 2y ago
        You plain read my comment wrong. The things that Apple prevents (like the changes to make fingerprinting harder) are already illegal in enough markets that no big player is doing it. The tracking that Apple enabled is tracking that everybody does. The net effect is a reduction in privacy in private mode.