So this, from Firefox, is fucking toxic: mstdn.social/@Lokjo/1127724969…
You might be aware Chrome— a browser made by an ad company— has been trying to claw back the limitations recently placed on ad networks by the death of third-party cookies, and added new features that gather and report data directly to ad networks. You'd know this because Chrome displayed a popup.
If you're a Firefox user, what you probably don't know is Firefox added this feature and *has already turned it on without asking you*
Lokjo - EU's Gmaps replacement (@Lokjo@mstdn.social)
Attached: 1 image Firefox is just another US-corporate product with an 'open source' sticker on it. Their version 128 update has auto checked a new little privacy breach setting.Mastodon 🐘
reshared this
mcc
in reply to mcc • • •This is weird & bad for so many reasons. But what I focus on is:
1. I believe, morally if not practically, this tracking is *worse* than the old 3rd-party cookies. This is because 3rd-party cookies were a legitimately useful tech that could be misused for ads. This tech is *designed* to benefit advertisers from word go, yet is installed on *your* computer, like Malware.
2. Firefox is *worse than Chrome* in their implementation of ad snitching, because Chrome enables it only after user consent.
mcc
in reply to mcc • • •mcc
in reply to mcc • • •Other, loose angles to consider this from:
- Google/Firefox claim their tracking features are not "tracking" because they use something called "differential privacy". I don't have room to explain this class of technology, but I sincerely consider it to be fake. Without getting into the details, they provide *less* information to the advertisers than a cookie would have. But I'd prefer they provide none. Steps are taken to anonymize the data, but what is anonymized can often be de-anonymized.
mcc
in reply to mcc • • •mcc
in reply to mcc • • •- Firefox's "Privacy-preserving" ad tracking has other interesting issues. In another way the new ad snitching is worse than the old tracker cookies, Firefox doesn't *tell* you what data it's collected or reported, and unlike with cookies doesn't give you the ability to delete recorded "impressions".
Also interestingly, the feature is not available to *all* advertisers currently, only a "small number" of partner sites. *Firefox doesn't disclose who they are*, again making this worse than $GOOG.
mcc
in reply to mcc • • •- This event seems to tie in with other confusing developments around Mozilla as a company/"Foundation". I do not know enough about these issues to comment on them intelligently. I know only that Mozilla has, inexplicably for a nominal nonprofit, recently bought an advertising firm: mastodon.social/@jwz/112650295…
and that I have seen… let's say "criticism" of recent changes to the board makeup: spiceworks.com/tech/tech-gener…
Mozilla CPO Sues Company Over Cancer-Related Disability Discrimination
Sumeet Wadhwani (Spiceworks)jwz
2024-06-20 18:11:37
mcc
in reply to mcc • • •Anyway, I guess that's a lot of typing. The TLDR is:
- There is now a feature labeled "Privacy-preserving ad measurement" near the bottom of your Firefox Privacy settings. I recommend turning it off, or switching to a more privacy-conscious browser such as Google Chrome.
- I have filed two bugs on Firefox about this, which I am choosing not to link to dissuade brigading. If I have not been banned from the bug tracker by next week I will file another bug about the ChatGPT integration in nightly
mcc
in reply to mcc • • •Two updates to this thread.
Update 1: In this thread I complain Mozilla does not provide specific technical details about this feature. It turns out there *is* a document with the technical details, on Github:
github.com/mozilla/explainers/…
It also explains (wiki.mozilla.org/Origin_Trials) which sites are participating in the feature.
I am linking this document because I believe the first five words do more to discredit what Mozilla is doing here than anything I could say:
"Mozilla is working with Meta"
explainers/ppa-experiment at main · mozilla/explainers
GitHubmcc
in reply to mcc • • •Update 2: I didn't know this, but it turns out Apple Safari is *also* spying on what ads you view and click on, and sending that info (with some anonymization) directly to advertisers via a backchannel?
apple.com/legal/privacy/data/e….
It's worse documented than the Firefox/Chrome versions, and like Firefox (unlike Chrome) there is no clickthrough consent. I don't expect better of Apple, but this *grates* given they're running big "A browser that's actually private." billboard ads in my neighborhood.
Legal - Safari & Privacy - Apple
AppleDon Marti
in reply to mcc • • •lol I just checked on Apple Safari and it turns out you have to go to Settings, Safari, then scroll all the way down to "Advanced" to find and turn off "Privacy Preserving Ad Measurement"
(TIL participating in a market economy without leaking an information advantage to counterparties is considered "Advanced" now)
(edit: it's a little different on Apple iOS and Mac OS -- blog.zgp.org/turn-off-advertis… )
turn off advertising measurement in Apple Safari
blog.zgp.orgHubert Figuière
in reply to mcc • • •mcc
in reply to Hubert Figuière • • •Yellow Flag
in reply to mcc • • •Do you realize that Chrome’s Topics API which provides the websites with your interests is very different from what Firefox is doing here? Firefox does not give websites anything that they cannot achieve via regular tracking. That should be the reason why no consent is requested – you as a user have no disadvantage whatsoever from this feature. In the unlikely event that a website decides to use it, audience measurement will be performed in a way that cannot be traced back to you.
Yes, this is a feature designed specifically for advertisers. But that’s just reality: if Mozilla wants to make advertising less invasive, they have to acknowledge that it exists. It needs to give advertisers more privacy-preserving alternatives rather than merely hope that they will disappear into thin air. Mind you, you are still free to use an ad blocker, so that nothing is tracked (messing with cookies wouldn’t give you that effect).
As to “a small number of sites,” I don’t read this as Firefox limiting who they make this feature available to. Very few websites will be interested in using it at that point, so Mozilla apparently explicitly partnered with some who will test this and provide feedback.
mcc
in reply to Yellow Flag • • •mcc
in reply to mcc • • •@WPalant So in other words:
- What Chrome is doing is actually worse than what you thought,
- What Firefox is doing *is* identical to a feature already in Chrome,
- Chrome's implementation of that specific feature is better than Firefox's, because (1) Google shows a disclosure rather than enabling it secretly as Firefox did (2) their description of the feature does not falsely describe it as "privacy-preserving" (where in fact the feature strictly decreases privacy).
mcc
in reply to mcc • • •