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

Proposal: Treat FLoC as a security concern

make.wordpress.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 274 posts

Re: Proposal: Treat FLoC as a security concern

#181

Post by andreareina »

oh_sigh wrote: post #164
berkes wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should keep in mind why Google invests in FLoC, though. Either they realize third party cookies are on a (regulated) dead end. Or they realize there is a bigger moat. Or something else that helps them. But in any case, seeing the current Google, this is not something benefitting their users(products?) primarily. Unless some benefits accidentally aligned. So, pushing back towards the broken status quo may be the ri…

Don't users not like being tracked by 3P cookies? Isn't that why 3P cookies are being phased out?

The cynic in me says that Google is phasing out 3P cookies only because it's got something better (via Analyitics and now FLoC), and so it can simultaneously get some good PR while hamstringing the competition.

Re: Proposal: Treat FLoC as a security concern

#182

Post by jakelazaroff »

pdonis wrote: post #141
jakelazaroff wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fundamentally better for whom? Do you think Google has never considered that business model? I think it’s much more likely that they’ve put a considerable amount of effort and research into it, and concluded that their current business model will let them extract the most money from their products. That’s why we need regulation. Under these market conditions, Google’s business model does appear to be the best for the…

> Fundamentally better for whom? In the long run it's better for everybody. But it is true that "the long run" can be pretty long. > Do you think Google has never considered that business model? I think Google probably considered it early on but found it easier to go the way they actually went. But "easier" is not the same as "best in the long run". > their current business model will let them extract the most money…

Can you explain how exactly charging their users money is a better long term business model for Google than selling their data? If you don’t count the threat of regulation (since you say it won’t solve the issue) I can’t think of a single piece of evidence supporting that.

It sounds like your reasoning is “users will eventually wake up!” which I would bet a lot of money will never happen.

Re: Proposal: Treat FLoC as a security concern

#183

Post by tomxor »

jffry wrote: post #155
slver wrote: post #150

> Why is this bad? As the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains in their post “Google’s FLoC is a terrible idea“, placing people in groups based on their browsing habits is likely to facilitate employment, housing and other types of discrimination, as well as predatory targeting of unsophisticated consumers. All of this has been happening with tracking cookies, fingerprint tracking, pixel tracking and so on. And wi…

Third party cookies, love them or hate them, have been with us for a long time, and simply dropping them would not be viable without the long phase out. And a long phase out is not something around which you can form a singular rallying cry. FLoC is a new thing which is just being rolled out, so it's a lot easier for people to resist adding a new thing that makes the internet more crappy and less private. I think it'…

> Third party cookies, love them or hate them, have been with us for a long time, and simply dropping them would not be viable without the long phase out.

Not true, FireFox and Safari have had them off by default for over a year now. Additionally Chrome had planned to turn them off last year but then cried "covid" which for some reason = delay... because... think of the adverts! i mean covid!

Anyway, I'm pretty sure any large websites relying on 3rd party cookies for functionality will have already experienced users blocking issues. We have and have already been forced to change, we don't do ads, but our use case is a bit esoteric in that it needed 3rd party cookies for sessions.

Re: Proposal: Treat FLoC as a security concern

#184

Post by rtpg »

jffry wrote: post #155
slver wrote: post #150

> Why is this bad? As the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains in their post “Google’s FLoC is a terrible idea“, placing people in groups based on their browsing habits is likely to facilitate employment, housing and other types of discrimination, as well as predatory targeting of unsophisticated consumers. All of this has been happening with tracking cookies, fingerprint tracking, pixel tracking and so on. And wi…

Third party cookies, love them or hate them, have been with us for a long time, and simply dropping them would not be viable without the long phase out. And a long phase out is not something around which you can form a singular rallying cry. FLoC is a new thing which is just being rolled out, so it's a lot easier for people to resist adding a new thing that makes the internet more crappy and less private. I think it'…

Another thing is that third-party cookies can actually offer real functionality that has nothing to do with advertising (for example platforms like Salesforce let you integrate your own offering into a Salesforce users' system, and third-party cookies can be a pretty straightforward way of accomplishing that).

I don't see really any non-tracking reason for FLoC

Re: Proposal: Treat FLoC as a security concern

#185

Post by rtpg »

oh_sigh wrote: post #165
kergonath wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the ToS are contrary to the law, then they are null and void. Laws tend to trump private agreements. Then, if it goes to trial in Europe, they’d have a hard time proving that the ToS are fair and that the user agrees freely and understanding what is being agreed, which is also another condition for any form of contract to be valid.

You're saying there is some law which prevents me from inputting my own data into a program, and it categorizes me into one of a thousand types of people?

yes, laws can prevent you from doing things that, when explained technically and without context, sound trivial and not important.

Re: Proposal: Treat FLoC as a security concern

#186

Post by krick »

slver wrote: post #150

> Why is this bad? As the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains in their post “Google’s FLoC is a terrible idea“, placing people in groups based on their browsing habits is likely to facilitate employment, housing and other types of discrimination, as well as predatory targeting of unsophisticated consumers. All of this has been happening with tracking cookies, fingerprint tracking, pixel tracking and so on. And wi…

As far as I'm concerned, it is just great that something made it for people to be "all up in arms about it". And "why" is not very important and neither is it surprising, really. I mean, how could have people been all up in arms about well-established technology all web is built upon, when 10 years ago google was, allegedly, "the good corporation", all people were like "I have nothing to hide", avoiding FB because of privacy concerns was just "being paranoid" and people telling stories confirmed by Snowden shortly after were "schizophrenic"? It is literally like 3-5 years (right before Cambridge Analytica scandal, I guess) since being "concerned" about your web-presence became somewhat mainstream.

And FLoC is... well, it's new.

Re: Proposal: Treat FLoC as a security concern

#187

Post by googlryas »

rtpg wrote: post #185
oh_sigh wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying there is some law which prevents me from inputting my own data into a program, and it categorizes me into one of a thousand types of people?

yes, laws can prevent you from doing things that, when explained technically and without context, sound trivial and not important.

Does the gdpr or any other law prevent end users processing their own data in their user agents? Or require that headers sent to respected?

Re: Proposal: Treat FLoC as a security concern

#188

Post by fomine3 »

jefftk wrote: post #52
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are strategies that are being aggressively restricted. Chrome has not started preventing third party cookies yet , but they're the last holdout and have already stated they will kill them shortly. If you're using a non-user-hostile browser, these strategies are already heavily limited by default and are already not a concern. Every Firefox release is making significant improvements on reducing the fingerprintin…

> Chrome has not started preventing third party cookies yet, but they're the last holdout and have already stated they will kill them shortly. Chrome's original announcement about phasing out third-party cookies is explicit about new technologies like Privacy Sandbox (which includes FLoc) being how third-party cookies will no longer be needed: "After initial dialogue with the web community, we are confident that with…

So probably the phasing out third-party cookies will be postponed due to these reaction?

Re: Proposal: Treat FLoC as a security concern

#189

Post by GuB-42 »

nabakin wrote: post #89
pm90 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIUC while floc does indeed build a profile browser side it isn’t something that advertisers can track with the same precision as they can with 3p cookies. So while it’s not the holy grail it does appear to be a small step in the right direction from the status quo. Do I understand the situation correctly? Genuinely curious.

That's what I've been wondering. If FLoC is better for privacy than current tracking methods and Google intends to switch to using FLoC instead of current tracking methods, wouldn't it be better for FLoC to succeed?

Yes, but it is unlikely to succeed.

The problem is that it is an unstable strategy. FLoC is strictly worse for privacy-conscious users if trackers don't change their strategy, and it is also strictly worse for trackers to stop using their current tracking techniques.

It is a bit like the prisoner dilemma.

Re: Proposal: Treat FLoC as a security concern

#190

Post by [deleted] »

krick wrote: post #186
slver wrote: post #150

> Why is this bad? As the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains in their post “Google’s FLoC is a terrible idea“, placing people in groups based on their browsing habits is likely to facilitate employment, housing and other types of discrimination, as well as predatory targeting of unsophisticated consumers. All of this has been happening with tracking cookies, fingerprint tracking, pixel tracking and so on. And wi…

As far as I'm concerned, it is just great that something made it for people to be "all up in arms about it". And "why" is not very important and neither is it surprising, really. I mean, how could have people been all up in arms about well-established technology all web is built upon, when 10 years ago google was, allegedly, "the good corporation", all people were like "I have nothing to hide", avoiding FB because of…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN