Is Firefox's implementations of the Topics API as introduced in Chrome a couple of months back? Or is this something different?
Different
Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default
101–110 of 221 posts
Re: Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default
#102The scare quotes here are uncalled for: it is privacy-preserving. The approach allows measurement without disclosing who, specifically, did what with the ad. The best objection to these proposals isn't privacy, it's that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers. I guess the fundamental question there is if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad. Op…
Only IF it is correctly implemented. And only if you trust all relevant parties involved in this feature. And honestly, whenever I see that something has been anonymized I assume it isn't. Mostly because the industry has a terrible track record, secondly because the incentives are almost always misaligned to begin with. I'd trust mozilla more than most, but not enough to give them free rein and opt in things for me.…
> I'd trust mozilla more than most
More than Google or Microsoft does not say much. And - judging by how hard it is to fully disable telemetry and call-home on, say, Mozilla Thunderbird:
https://superuser.com/q/1672309/122798
I wouldn't trust them very much.
(Yes, I know it's a different project and not the same team but Mozilla is still the parent entity etc. etc.)
Re: Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fine. Then pay for the tools you use rather than force them to get money from another source. The toolmakers work to earn a living.
Firefox is open source. I do pay for it as a tool. Toolmakers also work out of desire to practice their craft. Many projects are written, not to “earn a living.”
True but Firefox is mainly written by people who want to earn a living.
Much FOSS is actually written by people who are being paid to do it,
How do you fund the producers of Firefox and the infrastructure needed to get it built and released. Currently the only way is that the sellers of the adverts you read give money to fund Firefox.
Now if you paid for Firefox then they don't need to get money from advertisers.
Similarly to get ad free webpages you need to pay the authors.
Re: Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
A major difference is that the data is stored in your browser, and aggregated anonymously by Mozilla (also using differential privacy). Using the techniques you refer to, the ad platforms both store the data and then aggregate it, possibly promising to add differential privacy. The advantages I see are: (1) you can verify which data is collected by the browser and when/how it is sent to Mozilla, because this code is…
According to their blog post, Let's Encrypt will run the aggregator service - which is even better.
Better for whom? Even more of normal internet operations flowing through ISRG is concerning itself. Let's Encrypt alone already gives them more power than any private organization should have.
Re: Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The scare quotes here are uncalled for: it is privacy-preserving. It is strictly less privacy-preserving than not implementing this "feature" that has zero benefit to the user running the browser. At the very least it pings yet another third party, most likely it effectively leaks much more. > The best objection to these proposals isn't privacy, it's that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers. I gues…
Web needs to make money. Giving tools to advertisers while making sure user privacy is preserved is better than free reign of tracking we have before, no? I myself do not like ads or tracking, but we need to be realistic and there needs a way to make web sustainable. How to do that and making sure that monopolies like Google are in check is a valid concern though, but in these conversations is the only point I hear.…
> Web needs to make money.
Commercial use of the internet was banned until 1991, it worked perfectly fine until then.
Re: Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Web needs to make money. Giving tools to advertisers while making sure user privacy is preserved is better than free reign of tracking we have before, no? I myself do not like ads or tracking, but we need to be realistic and there needs a way to make web sustainable. How to do that and making sure that monopolies like Google are in check is a valid concern though, but in these conversations is the only point I hear.…
> Web needs to make money I don’t think this is true. No one “needs” to make money. Museums don’t need to make money. OSS doesn’t need to make money. The web has value without making money. But even if it does make money, it doesn’t need to maximize profits at the expense of user privacy and joy.
Maximising profits and being sustainable are 2 different things. Museums do not need to make money because they are funded externally.
It is like saying artists do not need to make money. You seem to go to the very extremes.
Re: Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default
#107There is a lot fire directed at Mozilla on HN. I'm not saying I support or can make sense of all of their decisions but I'd love for someone in the criticizers camp to explain what steps they would take to make Mozilla and the continued development of Firefox a financially sustainable and independent endeavour.
They've been pulling in half a billion dollars per year for 15 years. They should have budgeted to invest part of that money to build a development trust fund.
Re: Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default
#108The scare quotes here are uncalled for: it is privacy-preserving. The approach allows measurement without disclosing who, specifically, did what with the ad. The best objection to these proposals isn't privacy, it's that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers. I guess the fundamental question there is if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad. Op…
> if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad.
Internet advertising worked fine before user tracking, it was just based on the contents of the webpage.
Before that it existed in newspapers and magazines for over a decade, without advertisers insisting the publisher spy on each of their readers.
Re: Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default
#109The scare quotes here are uncalled for: it is privacy-preserving. The approach allows measurement without disclosing who, specifically, did what with the ad. The best objection to these proposals isn't privacy, it's that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers. I guess the fundamental question there is if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad. Op…
> The scare quotes here are uncalled for: it is privacy-preserving It is net negative though. It is more privacy-preserving to just not implement this in the first place. It is baffling why Firefox ships with this on by default. Even Chrome prompted users with a (misleading) dialog box to turn it on or off.
> It is baffling why Firefox ships with this on by default.
Not really. The reason is that Mozilla wants to make money by selling your data/preferences. Probably so that the incompetent CEO can get even more obscene "compensation". They just bought a spyware adtech company.
Re: Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The scare quotes here are uncalled for: it is privacy-preserving. It is strictly less privacy-preserving than not implementing this "feature" that has zero benefit to the user running the browser. At the very least it pings yet another third party, most likely it effectively leaks much more. > The best objection to these proposals isn't privacy, it's that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers. I gues…
Web needs to make money. Giving tools to advertisers while making sure user privacy is preserved is better than free reign of tracking we have before, no? I myself do not like ads or tracking, but we need to be realistic and there needs a way to make web sustainable. How to do that and making sure that monopolies like Google are in check is a valid concern though, but in these conversations is the only point I hear.…
> Web needs to make money
Absolutely, but as long as adverting is allowed to finance the whole bloody thing we're not going to improve anything. Advertising should be limited as to not influence content and that's currently not what's happing. As it stand, outside of "the small web" ads are the main attraction and any content that may be provided to us is done so to enable advertising, or at least not upset advertisers.
I want privacy pushed so far that the majority of the web is going to have to find financing outside of advertising, be it micro-payments, donation, subscriptions or benefactors. People should pay directly for software, service, like social media, news, email and possibly even search. If we as a side-effect uses these things less I see that as an absolute benefit.