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

DuckDuckGo Extension to Block FLoC, Google’s New Tracking Method in Chrome

spreadprivacy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 259 posts

Re: DuckDuckGo Extension to Block FLoC, Google’s New Tracking Method in Chrome

#81

Post by gkbrk »

HenryBemis wrote: post #73
sjwright wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a web developer I don’t test in Chrome—I develop against Firefox and sanity check using Safari iOS. Therefore my site is explicitly optimised for Firefox. Chrome users might experience issues. Or they won’t. I have no idea.

Your "about" clearly states it: Some say I argue on the internet too much, but those people are wrong. I don't know what you do/sell on said websites, but if you still have a job it means that those who hired you haven't received (enough) complaints yet.

I am not sure about that. Usually, when people only use Chrome to test and develop; Firefox/Safari users end up with problems. When someone tests on Firefox; things usually end up working on Chrome without problems.

This might be due to Firefox users being more aware of standards than just "whatever runs on Chrome today", or because Google tends to ship non-standard behaviour with their browser and make it a "standard" with their massive marketshare. Or it might be related to Firefox developers implementing the standards more carefully in order to protect their shrinking marketshare.

In my experience people get way more complaints when the developer uses Chrome and the user uses Firefox than the other way around.

Re: DuckDuckGo Extension to Block FLoC, Google’s New Tracking Method in Chrome

#83

Post by discordianfish »

manuelflara wrote: post #53
theonlybutlet wrote: post #41

To be honest though, for the general public not using adblockers, is FloC not better privacy wise than your traditional cookies?

I'll leave this quote from the EFF article on FloC[1] > Google’s pitch to privacy advocates is that a world with FLoC (and other elements of the “privacy sandbox”) will be better than the world we have today, where data brokers and ad-tech giants track and profile with impunity. But that framing is based on a false premise that we have to choose between “old tracking” and “new tracking.” It’s not either-or. Instead o…

This isn't a false premise. Either you get the ad supported industry behind some solution or whatever privacy respecting solution will be incompatible with these sites.

Re: DuckDuckGo Extension to Block FLoC, Google’s New Tracking Method in Chrome

#84

Post by bauc »

erdo wrote: post #5

Even without privacy considerations though, duckduckgo seems to give me better results, I've been using it as my default search engine for years

I've found that, it took me a few times to switch over. But I've found that even when I can't find something on DuckDuckGo when I try use Google I don't find it either. I wonder if that is now because I haven't regularly used in a few years and Google isn't able to guess what I'm trying to look for.

Re: DuckDuckGo Extension to Block FLoC, Google’s New Tracking Method in Chrome

#85

Post by remus »

manuelflara wrote: post #53
theonlybutlet wrote: post #41

To be honest though, for the general public not using adblockers, is FloC not better privacy wise than your traditional cookies?

I'll leave this quote from the EFF article on FloC[1] > Google’s pitch to privacy advocates is that a world with FLoC (and other elements of the “privacy sandbox”) will be better than the world we have today, where data brokers and ad-tech giants track and profile with impunity. But that framing is based on a false premise that we have to choose between “old tracking” and “new tracking.” It’s not either-or. Instead o…

To me it seems FLoC is more about trying to stop a fingerprinting arms race between browsers and adtech, as will happen if third party cookies are removed and no other alternative is provided. In an ideal world adtech companies would just hold up their hands and say 'games up, on to something else' but it's an industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars so if the more honest players leave the shadier companies will be only too happy to cash in.

Re: DuckDuckGo Extension to Block FLoC, Google’s New Tracking Method in Chrome

#86

Post by gkbrk »

halflings wrote: post #72
jnxx wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But that framing is based on a false premise Another false premise is that the "old tracking" will stop because of the "new tracking".

Chrome is entirely removing third-party cookies by 2022. https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/14/21064698/google-third-par...

Chrome is also hard-coding exemptions to Google and DoubleClick domains from their so-called privacy features.

This includes things like clearing the cookies leaving Google cookies alone, to sending a header with a browser ID to Google domains. I really doubt Google will get rid of all theirs methods to tie in their scripts on third-party websites to one user ID, as that will greatly reduce the effectiveness of Google Analytics or ReCAPTCHA.

Re: DuckDuckGo Extension to Block FLoC, Google’s New Tracking Method in Chrome

#88

Post by austincheney »

One way to defeat these kinds of spyware techniques is to keep the browser permanently at a fixed address, such as localhost, and import content from other websites as necessary to a page at that fixed location.

I am considering adding web scrapping to this file sharing privacy application I have written that already works in the browser. I could screen scrape content from other sites using a proxy on the terminal per user request and once piped to the browser privacy is protect by single origin policy and by a separation of content from address. I could even make the experience look like an embedded modern browser.

Re: DuckDuckGo Extension to Block FLoC, Google’s New Tracking Method in Chrome

#89

Post by spinningslate »

sjwright wrote: post #51
johnchristopher wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way is the site "optimized for privacy-respecting browsers" ? The browser is the thing being optimized. Does it mean to say that the website operators will intentionnaly not respect privacy of Chrome users but they will for Firefox ? “Chrome users might experience issues” but what issues ? It reads like a dishonest TOS like the one used by service providers using catch-all statements to cover their backs. It…

As a web developer I don’t test in Chrome—I develop against Firefox and sanity check using Safari iOS. Therefore my site is explicitly optimised for Firefox. Chrome users might experience issues. Or they won’t. I have no idea.

Don't see why you're being down-voted. That seems like a perfectly reasonable approach. Assuming, of course, the decision on compatibility is yours to make.

Paradoxically, it's consistent with part of the strategy google used to promote Chrome in the first place: make the dev tools good, to encourage developers to use chrome, so they'll optimise for it, so it'll become popular.

Privacy-advocating developers optimising for the browser(s) they believe are most privacy-respecting seems entirely appropriate. It's not anti-chrome, any more than those using chrome as their primary tool are anti-firefox (or whatever).

--

EDIT: noted that taking this decision requires the authority to do so.

Post reply on HN