Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Privacy Analysis of FLoC

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 167 posts

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#21

Post by aboringusername »

thanhhaimai wrote: post #15
______- wrote: post #2

> FLoC is premised on a compelling idea: enable ad targeting without exposing users to risk The second you open your browser you are exposed to risk. Many times I have had to tweak the default settings of my browser to comply with my (non paranoid) requirements. Basic things like putting DuckDuckGo as the default search engine, turning off various JS APIs like HTML5 Canvas, WebGL, using AD-blockers and other addons,…

Opinions are my own. I'm not sure if we're being led to focus on a wrong problem. I hate intrusive Ads as much as everyone else. However, it's not only that "when you open your browser, you are exposed to risk". It's also: - Every time you use Windows (without turning off all the bad settings) - Every time you connect to a Cell tower (telcos openly sell your location data) - Every time you use your credit cards Now,…

It doesn't matter anymore. The world is literally covered in tracking technologies from satellites orbiting the earth to radiowaves that are invisible to us but are monitoring our interactions within the world.

By existing in 2021 (whether you use computers/tech or not) you need to accept your data will be collected, analyzed and sold. It will be leaked, combined/processed and abused in many different ways. I would be surprised if there was a single human on earth Facebook did not have a profile on at this point. I'd suspect the NSA can bring up the profiles of all 7 billion humans and recollect their entire lives from the digital/physical breadcrumbs they leave every day.

Now that we can collect so much data, so rapidly (at the speed of light) and can analyze it in real time and store it forever it seems every digital application is focused on obtaining that valuable information and storing it to use in some way (usually, for profit).

Even electric cars require apps and digital connectivity before they can be used/charged.

Data is the new gold.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#22

Post by md_ »

justinplouffe wrote: post #12

What bothers me the most about FLOC is that there is no reason or advantage for me as a user to run it unless I'm forced to. Cookies, even if they get hijacked for tracking, are genuinely useful to persist state and having them on results in a better experience. Even in the case of something more invasive like DRM/EME, I might want to turn it on in exchange to be able to watch some new show on a streaming service. Tu…

Isn’t the DRM comparison exactly right, though? Improving ad targeting enables an ad-supported online ecosystem.

Admittedly, there’s a tragedy of the commons issue: I have no individual incentive to enable FLOC. But, similarly to your DRM example, at some point publishers could require it, no?

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#23

Post by jedberg »

justinplouffe wrote: post #12

What bothers me the most about FLOC is that there is no reason or advantage for me as a user to run it unless I'm forced to. Cookies, even if they get hijacked for tracking, are genuinely useful to persist state and having them on results in a better experience. Even in the case of something more invasive like DRM/EME, I might want to turn it on in exchange to be able to watch some new show on a streaming service. Tu…

I like personalized ads. If I have to suffer with ads to support the websites I like, I'd rather have them personalized. Instagram is really good at this -- I probably click on at least 1/4 of the ads I get, and have definitely made purchases based on Instagram ads.

So as a user, the benefit would be better ads. Honestly I'll probably leave FLOC on if given the option (although I use Firefox and Safari, and as far as I know neither will really support it).

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#24

Post by tyingq »

"because FLoC IDs are the same across all sites, they become a shared key to which trackers can associate data from external sources"

"FLoC leaks more information than you want"

"The end result here is that any site will be able to learn a lot about you with far less effort than they would need to expend today."

Hmm. From someone (Firefox Team CTO) that probably knows this space well.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#25

Post by yoz-y »

passivate wrote: post #19
freeone3000 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how most websites work. The JavaScript code that runs on the browser then reports back to a server, because it makes money for the people who wrote the app.

Yeah, I meant without the 'reporting back to a server'. Like for e.g., the website sends a 'package' to the browser - The package is built on the fly and contains all the dependencies. The package is then unarchived and files are opened in the browser w/o the server being involved.

That is the standard static html + css + JavaScript without further requests. Aka Web 1.0. (Should you make all in one page with inline images that is)

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#26

Post by throwaway2048 »

jedberg wrote: post #23
justinplouffe wrote: post #12

What bothers me the most about FLOC is that there is no reason or advantage for me as a user to run it unless I'm forced to. Cookies, even if they get hijacked for tracking, are genuinely useful to persist state and having them on results in a better experience. Even in the case of something more invasive like DRM/EME, I might want to turn it on in exchange to be able to watch some new show on a streaming service. Tu…

I like personalized ads. If I have to suffer with ads to support the websites I like, I'd rather have them personalized. Instagram is really good at this -- I probably click on at least 1/4 of the ads I get, and have definitely made purchases based on Instagram ads. So as a user, the benefit would be better ads. Honestly I'll probably leave FLOC on if given the option (although I use Firefox and Safari, and as far as…

HN is the only place on the internet I've seen people expound their love for personalized advertising.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#27

Post by wolverine876 »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #26
jedberg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like personalized ads. If I have to suffer with ads to support the websites I like, I'd rather have them personalized. Instagram is really good at this -- I probably click on at least 1/4 of the ads I get, and have definitely made purchases based on Instagram ads. So as a user, the benefit would be better ads. Honestly I'll probably leave FLOC on if given the option (although I use Firefox and Safari, and as far as…

HN is the only place on the internet I've seen people expound their love for personalized advertising.

Is there any research on people's preferences in this regard?

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#28

Post by ahelwer »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #26
jedberg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like personalized ads. If I have to suffer with ads to support the websites I like, I'd rather have them personalized. Instagram is really good at this -- I probably click on at least 1/4 of the ads I get, and have definitely made purchases based on Instagram ads. So as a user, the benefit would be better ads. Honestly I'll probably leave FLOC on if given the option (although I use Firefox and Safari, and as far as…

HN is the only place on the internet I've seen people expound their love for personalized advertising.

It helps that that's where the money comes from.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#29

Post by throwaway2048 »

freebuju wrote: post #9
tylersmith wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the number 1 reason it should be the default.

Not happening. All those anti-tracking measures break websites more often than not.

"more often than not" is a vast overstatement, it breaks a tiny handful of sites at best.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#30

Post by o8r3oFTZPE »

Is there anyone on HN who believes Mozilla will not implement FLoC in Firefox. Mozilla has stated over and over that it is a firm believer in advertising as "essential" for the internet to survive. In practice, they never phrase it as an opinion or even an underlying assumption (that can be questioned), they try to state this as a "fact".[1] This is called advocacy. Mozilla is an advocate for online advertising. They derive their salaries from payments from a deal with an online advertising company and in return they send search queries on Firefox to that company. (This argument that ads are critical is total BS, IMO. The internet worked great without ads. It would work even better now. Anyone who tests these things can see the web without ads works much better than it does with ads.) What Mozilla really needs to state is that Mozilla believes online ads are critical to Mozilla's survival as an employer. If web browser authors and their bosses want to be paid, then they assume they must to sell out to advertisers. Why is there no privacy by default when using web browsers. This is why.

1. Note first sentence, underlying assumption, of Mozilla communications. This company is blinded by advertising payola and cannot see non-commercial use of the web as worth protecting.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/the-future-of-ads-and-pr...

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/building-a-more-privacy-...

Post reply on HN