Hacker News Reader

Comment by binarymax | Hacker News Reader

The browsers intent may be to remove cross-site tracking, but we all know that Google Ads will still follow people around the web through latent signals (even if wrapped in something like FLOC), and other parties like KISSmetrics will continue the fingerprinting cat and mouse game.

View on HN

Yes, FLOC and similar technologies, are another way to track users, but this time in the browser. We really do not see that as being any better. In many ways it is really worse.

https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-ge...

> Google Ads will still follow people around the web through latent signals

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

Google Ads has committed "once third-party cookies are phased out, we will not build alternate identifiers to track individuals as they browse across the web, nor will we use them in our products." -- https://blog.google/products/ads-commerce/a-more-privacy-fir...

> even if wrapped in something like FLOC

FLoC doesn't allow "a few actors [to] obtain competitive advantages by collecting data from across websites" since everyone sees the same number of identifying cohort bits.

> other parties like KISSmetrics will continue the fingerprinting cat and mouse game

Historically, the TOR browser was pretty much the only one that took fingerprinting prevention seriously, but it's now a substantial focus for Safari/Firefox/Chrome. I do think fingerprinting groups will continue to have things that work when third-party cookies go away, but I don't expect it to persist that long after? I also would not be surprised to see a regulation here, since I (not a lawyer) don't think fingerprinting is compatible with the GDPR or the other regulations it's inspiring around the world.

(Still speaking only for myself)

The point is the FLOC is surveillance as well. You are still profiling users. This has got to stop.

https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-ge...

I agree FLoC is tracking (though not at the individual level). The question we've been discussing, however, is the effect on competition in particular: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27763345

Clearly not allowing anyone to track is good for competition. Now there are certain companies that collect data from multiple sources. That gives them a benefit compared to others. But what I do not understand is how they can do it? How can you accept that your company spies on its users and collects data on them? How can you say it is OK?

https://www.jefftk.com/p/why-i-work-on-ads

Interesting read. Clearly you are struggling with your choice.

> Clearly you are struggling with your choice

What in the post gives you that impression?

(I'm not)

I guess the start of it gave that impression in particular. It is great you are giving so much of your salary to charity, but the fact that is the first thing you write as an explanation of why you do what you do does send a signal.

I also have a feeling you are trying to explain to yourself why the things Google is doing is not bad. So you twist things a bit here and there to make your point.

In any case, you are not in a position, I assume, to influence what Google does. Google is on a path that a lot of us do not like. We do not like being tracked and we do not like profiles being built on us. We want that to stop. You try to convince us it is not so bad, but the feeling I get is that you are just as much trying to convince yourself, but obviously I am not you, so this is just based on a feeling.

Regarding your "earn to give", I feel like I want to play devil's advocate and ask why not cut your salary in half by working or volunteering on more humanitarian projects and charities? Not sure the pay would exactly be half less, maybe even more, maybe less, but the net positive of what you do may be greater? (I say that, as if we can measure such impacts :p)

I've considered doing directly valuable work, have tried things along these lines in the past, and may try them again in the future. For now though, I think earning to give is a much better fit for me: https://www.jefftk.com/p/earning-to-give-transcript

> I agree FLoC is tracking (though not at the individual level).

FLoC significantly increases the entropy in a user's fingerprint (typically by 15 bits iirc). This improves existing individual tracking mechanisms that use a fingerprinting-based approach. FLoC therefore enables further individual tracking, and browsers that take privacy seriously should disable it.

FLOC is tracking in your browser. How is that not individual? Not that it matters. Tracking is wrong whether you are able to track an individual or not. This is not just about privacy.

All the major browsers already locally track the sites you visit so they can maintain your browsing history, turn links purple, etc. What FLoC adds is that it locally computes a low-cardinality anonymized summary of your browsing history, and makes it available to sites.

So in other words FLOC makes the browser spyware. Clearly the browser history is useful for the user. That is why it is there. The browser company has no right to take that history and turn it into an ad profile. It is just plain wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com