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

61–70 of 167 posts

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#61

Post by jedberg »

neolog wrote: post #60
jedberg wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dislike ads too. I'd rather just pay to use the sites. But I also understand not everyone can afford that. The ads are there for them. So examples of things that I've bought from Instagram ads: The most recent Pride lego set. I would have never known it existed, but I'm glad I know now, because I want to give my kids something fun to build that sparks a conversation about Pride and what it means and why it's import…

Are there many people who can't afford to pay for a pageview but can afford the product being advertised on that page?

No, but that's the whole point of ads. They're like a progressive tax system. Also some ads are awareness campaigns. Like you see a bunch of ads for Coke and the subconsciously when you want a soda you grab a Coke.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#62

Post by skinkestek »

saurik wrote: post #54
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…

FWIW, I am "personally" sick of the Internet reminding me of the thing I already bought yesterday, along with doubling down on ads for things I only engage with because I want to show my friends how stupid the ad/product is, which seems to be the state of the art of "personalized" Internet ads. I would honestly get more value--if I am forced to see ads--out of less personalized ads. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KbKd…

that was in deed brilliant!

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#63

Post by Waterluvian »

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…

I agree. I like personalized ads. Where I'm bothered is when they're "too" personalized.

Like I buy an oven, why are you showing me ovens? Stop over fitting. Just know that I'm an active nerd and advertise me active nerd stuff.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#64

Post by freeone3000 »

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.

Then how are the people who wrote the app supposed to make money by selling your personal information to advertisers?

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#65

Post by jefftk »

driverdan wrote: post #57
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…

> If I have to suffer with ads to support the websites I like You don't. Use an adblocker and be done with them.

And then how is the website jedberg likes supported?

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#66

Post by olliej »

smoldesu wrote: post #56
tomrod wrote: post #18

FLoC: micro market segmentation. Profiles versus data. It requires on 33 bits to uniquely identify an individual. [0]. I would be interested to learn whether FLoC employed k-anonymity measures, and their report on it. If I am retired, female, live in the 830* zip3, and own a sedan, it is probably hard to identify me. Add that I am Korean and am searching for thyroid cancer treatments on Tuesday at 8:43AM local, then…

The article you linked relies on low-precision guessing that only reduces the entropy in the system, but doesn't eliminate it. No reasonable jury would consider their 33 bits to be "uniquely identifiable".

plenty of places don't have that requirement, and bias goes a long way beyond that. But more to the point, why should google, etc, get to know that about you?

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#67

Post by tomrod »

smoldesu wrote: post #56
tomrod wrote: post #18

FLoC: micro market segmentation. Profiles versus data. It requires on 33 bits to uniquely identify an individual. [0]. I would be interested to learn whether FLoC employed k-anonymity measures, and their report on it. If I am retired, female, live in the 830* zip3, and own a sedan, it is probably hard to identify me. Add that I am Korean and am searching for thyroid cancer treatments on Tuesday at 8:43AM local, then…

The article you linked relies on low-precision guessing that only reduces the entropy in the system, but doesn't eliminate it. No reasonable jury would consider their 33 bits to be "uniquely identifiable".

Remember that's 33 bits right now. You can be represented, uniquely, by 33 chained 0s and 1s as a GUID with no loss of fidelity. Add to that ongoing observation over time compared to a FLoC profile and the FLoC profile is a huge boon to the bit increase.

Think OutBrain a few years ago, who were egregiously intent on serving certain clickbait to certain consumer sets. With FLoC, your winnowing and funnel becomes much easier (rather than serving rotten banana ads with just one trick, you KNOW your consumer has a propensity for Dunkin Donuts and you can increase your ad coverage). Everyone wins but the product -- your eyeballs.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#68

Post by sixothree »

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…

Better ads isn't a product I have much interest in. I have very much literally never seen a targeted ad I like or even found useful. This sounds like Google employee speak to me.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#69

Post by olliej »

FLoC is inherently anti-user, it serves literally no purpose other than to support tracking, while breaking all current anti-tracking tech by mandating its user across domains (a nice solid break of Same Origin policy).

That it came from google is hardly surprising, as they are hell bent on stealing every bit of information they can from everyone, whether or not that person has a relationship with them, let alone consented to the abuse.

I would be stunned if FLoC lasted more than a few months in the real world before google just started using it as an additional source of entropy to spy on people across domains.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#70

Post by mavhc »

wearywanderer wrote: post #50
leipert wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I just dislike ads altogether. Especially Instagram feels very manipulative. So far nothing we have bought based on Instagram or Facebook ads has been useful in the long run. Personally I prefer to either have a need for something (I want to solve problem X) and do some research based off of that. Or I share an experience with a friend where they make a recommendation. Funniest Facebook ad by the way: I…

Advertising is linked to depression, body dysmorphic disorders like anorexia, and numerous other adverse mental conditions. The advertising industry has a whole lot of blood on their hands. This is an industry that doesn't think twice about exploiting people's feelings of vulnerability or isolation to help sell products. The more vulnerable the demographic, the more abusive the advertising industry gets. Just look at…

On the plus side it gives free information to billions of people, now everyone can have free gps maps, email, websites
Post reply on HN