121
Discussion
Right. I’m getting tired of seeing people dump on Firefox and Mozilla about this thing in the release notes:
Firefox now supports the experimental Privacy Preserving Attribution API, which provides an alternative to user tracking for ad attribution. This experiment is only enabled via origin trial and can be disabled in the new Website Advertising Preferences section in the Privacy and Security settings.
What is this? And why is it not something to get heated about?
Attribution is how advertisers know how to pay the right site owner when someone clicks on their ad. It’s important for ad-supported sites that clicks get attributed.
Right now, attribution is basically incompatible with protecting privacy. Advertisers use every method of tracking you can name, and some you can’t, to provide accurate attribution.
The Privacy Preserving Attribution API is an experimental way of informing an advertiser that someone clicked on an ad on a given site without leaking that it was you, specifically, who did that. Specifically, ads using the API ask Firefox to remember that they were seen, on what sites, and to what sites they lead. Then, when the user visits the destination site, the destination site asks Firefox to generate a report and submit it via a separate service that mixes your report with reports from other people and forwards these aggregated reports in large batches. Any traces that might be unique to you are lost in the crowd.
This is still experimental, being enabled by Mozilla on a site-by-site basis as developers request it. It’s not a free-for-all yet, and I can only find one entry on Bugzilla of a site who’s requested it.
what I’ve seen so far is that the heat isn’t against the API, it’s against it being shipped enabled by default (opt-out rather than opt-in)
Itd be useless opt-in though, why would companies adopt somehting that only a small minority
You’re just supporting the point.
No, he’s illustrating that opt in is the best of both worlds here. Users get protections of privacy and advertisers get the info that they need while not being able to violate the privacy of people visiting a website.
Based on what you’ve written it seems you’re assuming:
- Users will get any protections from this.
- That giving advertisers what they need is considered a win by everyone.
- Advertisers aren’t just going to do exactly what they did with the “Do not track” option.
- Attribution is the only thing they are using the collected data for.
- This will somehow disable their ability to collect fingerprinting data.
I’m not generally one for absolutes but i would put a significant portion of my current and future earnings on the fact that even if there was 100% adoption of this new privacy preserving by everyone in the world, advertisers would still be pulling some shit.
They would be performing elaborate privacy ignoring shenanigans because privacy gets them nothing and data is potential profit.
AdTech companies have a rich history of doing absolutely everything they can to profit from anything they can, it is naive to think they will so anything different in the future.
People like you 🤡 are exhausting. Time to Just block and move on.
Feel free, if you can’t deal with counterpoints to something as basic as this, a full conversation is probably off the table anyway.
That’s a requirement of being usable however. It has to be the default.
it’s not personal, though. that’s the point
From my understanding this is only a value add in terms of privacy? It’s basically just asking every site to use this more private form of attribution, so I don’t believe there’s any more personal data being collected, it’s just trying to send it in a more anonymized way if a given site supports it.
This would very likely be considered anonymized data, which means it is not personal data and the GDPR does not apply.
@Ephera nonsense. Clearly possibilities for Facebook, who invented this, to show everyone a unique enough ad, that even with mixing and smudging in the 3rd party reporter, they can tell you clicked it, because you are in a cohort of one, even if the ad reporting service says 100 slightly different people did it.
Since you know this with such certainty, you should sue them.
If it’s such a great thing for users, why isn’t Mozilla shouting from the rooftops how they’ve improved things, instead of it being enabled automatically?
Because its not really ready yet, im sure theyll talk more about it once they get big websites on board
Wait, it’s not ready yet, so they enable it by default? That’s not how experimental feature development happens.
The feature is ready in the browser, but its not ready because no websites use it, thats what i meant
What you’re saying is that they’re not vaporwaring their feature while it’s still in beta, if I get you.
This is a positive, if so, and I have Mozilla for what they did with … well, mozilla.exe .
What blows my mind is how people are crapping on Mozilla just constantly. Yeah sure they can do better. But also it’s the only real alternative to total domination from Chrome and all the dozens if not hundreds of rebuilds/ripoffs/reskins. It’s bizarre that they providing such a negative perspective on the basically the last bastion of an open web.
This constant negative attitude just boggles my mind. I’m happy with Firefox and Thunderbird with the functionality and features. Most of all the internet desperately needs diversity in the browser space.
For what it’s worth. I’m also skeptical of what they’re doing in the ad space. But I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because the internet sadly runs on ads for the vast majority of it. If they’re trying to at least bring something ethical to that space they have my support. Once they have a fair chunk of the market and don’t rely on the Google antitrust protection racket to survive we’ll talk about how to do better.
So you won’t even notice this if:
- you don’t click, or block, ads, or
- you never visit a website that’s part of the origin trial.
Exactly, ans it REPLACES traditional, more invasive ads for those sites
Well, that depends on the website, I assume?
Of course, Firefox already partitioned (and can block, if you enable Strict Tracking Protection and accept some extra breakage) cookies, so those more invasive ads were already neutered. Unlike e.g. Chrome, whose Topics API proactively reports characteristics about you before you click an ad, and does so while third-party cookies are still allowed too.
sounds reasonable
It does not matter how you feel about Googzilla. Spyware is spyware. And this is just one of many aspects of spyware built into and sneakily added by Googzilla.
That’s why there are forks like LibreWolf that remove that nonsense, because people aren’t sitting back and letting Googzilla run it into the ground.
This article seems to assume that advertisers don’t want our identifying information, and are clamoring for an alternative to tracking that lets them measure ad performance anonymously, which is just not true. Being able to uniquely identify users and target them is a feature, and getting more data points from the browser just helps add to their profiles.
