Any more info on IPA? That link doesn't even say what the acronym stands for. I couldn't figure out how it's supposed to work, too complicated. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have heard of it, and a cursory websearch didn't offer an explanation.

> Mozilla is one of the authors.

Mozilla as a company, or is it that there are Mozilla developers contributing? If Mozilla are planning to introduce a built-in tracking system to Firefox, doesn't that imply shooting off your one remaining foot?

switching to brave is no better

https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium/rel...

https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/c/ch...

There's often days you're going without security patches. If you want a browser without Google tracking, Firefox is a much better choice.

I think Firefox is the least shitty option here.

Harder to distribute than unzip-and-run binaries.

Mozilla did worse things than brave, at least brave actually does privacy by default rather than just talk about it!

Does this make any difference at all to the tracking?

brave is a good browser, and unlike firefox, doesn't leak memory with tons of tabs. you should use it.

Which makes this useless from advertising point of view. Which also means that Google is using the whole history to come up with "rough tooics".

Let's see:

--- start quote ---

With Topics, your browser determines a handful of topics, like “Fitness” or “Travel & Transportation,” that represent your top interests for that week based on your browsing history.

https://blog.google/products/chrome/get-know-new-topics-api-...

The browser observes and records topics that appear to be of interest to the user, based on their browsing activity.

https://developer.chrome.com/blog/new-in-chrome-115/

With the Topics API, the browser observes and records topics that appear to be of interest to the user, based on their browsing activity. This information is recorded on the user's device.

https://developer.chrome.com/docs/privacy-sandbox/topics/ove...

--- end quote ---

It's certainly interesting. The CMA seems to be attempting to balance interests of multiple parties, including both user privacy, healthy competition in the ads space, and the ability for digital publishers to generate revenue from displaying ads.

However, most of it appears to focus on the way Google's superior access to information could distort competition. It's not just about cookies. For example. Google could mine synced history data from Chrome.

Now, I'm not so naive as to think this would actually happen, but again, the Ars author's solution here could solve that particular problem: If Google ceased all behavior-based advertising in favor of, for example, subject-based advertising, there would be no distortions to competition. Google can't track you, and neither can other advertisers. Everyone has a level playing field.

Of course, that would drop revenues for digital publishers and advertising networks, including Google, but it would solve the problems of user privacy and distorted competition.

The one thing this ruling makes very clear though, is that it's very difficult to balance these concerns while Google makes a browser. There's a conflict between Google running a behavior-based advertising network and shipping a browser, and these regulatory bodies seem to be bending over backwards to try to find a solution where both of these things can exist. They could most certainly have taken the much easier road of forcing Google to discontinue Chrome.

Google is a corporation that does terrible things. That's not bias, it's observation.

Having said all that, what were his half truths and incorrect claims on passkey? genuinely interested to educate myself.

[1] https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/growth-marketing-and-s...

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2022/09/12/the-slow-deat...

[3] https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/third-party-cookie-phase-...

[4] https://www.marketingweek.com/death-third-party-cookies-goog...

[5] https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/The-death-of-third...

Moving that tracking directly into the browser seems like a cheap attempt at trying to bypass the GDPR.

That's my observation as well. And I think this applies especially to Google: for some reason it still has the reputation of this cool tech company here on HN, even though it's an advertising and user tracking/profiling company at this point, and there is really nothing "cool" about it anymore. But criticize Google on HN and you'll get downvoted really quickly.

It’s a pretty large absolute number of people, although thanks to section 1 clause b, it’s growing smaller.

YMMV, but “people who worship recent FAANG employment” can be a filter that’s positive to apply when seeking employment.

Now you have it both ways. You have the resume prestige of working at Google and the faux prestige of being a "virtuous person" who is willing to forgo the comfy Google life to "do what is right."

I don't think you understand the issue. Without third party cookies Google still has search ads while adtech competitors without a search engine are decimated. That's the antitrust concern.

Oh wait, I use uBlock Origin, so this doesn't affect me at all! I'm stealing all that data from servers that give it to me when doing an unathenticated GET.

Their is a world that is privacy focused and gives advertisers what they need - that’s what the privacy sandbox is trying to achieve. My employer works with Google directly on topics and other solutions to achieve what we want and create privacy.

You're moving the discussion towards law enforcement.

Well, DPAs in EU are overwhelmed, but lawsuits and rulings are progressing. For instance, Facebook found out that they can't force behavioral advertising via their ToS or via legitimate interests:

https://thisisunpacked.substack.com/p/the-eu-war-on-behavior...

I'd also add that small companies may fly under the radar, but big companies like Google and Meta are big targets.

(a) Consent

(b) Contract

(c) Legal obligation

(d) Vital interests

(e) Public task

(f) Legitimate interests

What a lot of companies are trying to do right now is weasel through under "legitimate interests" (eg a lot of scumbag seo-monkey websites have cookie consent dialogs stuffed with "legitimate interest" switches even though that doesn't work the way they think), but it's not clear that "improving my services at the expense of people's privacy" would pass the "legitimate interest" test if that ever goes to court. Legitimate interest requires them to pass "purpose", "necessity" and "balancing" tests. The "balancing" test in particular balances the companies interests against the interest of the user in maintaining privacy. Here's more about "legitimate interest" under GDPR.[2] it's not the get-out clause that people seem to think.

[1] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...

[2] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...

It's still sending interest information to advertisers, so it's an unqualified negative. Stop sending information to advertisers. Kill third-party cookies, and anything purporting to replace them.

For the ads, a large portion of the internet that people want (maybe not you in particular but lots of people in general), run on ads. Arstechnica runs on ads, theverge runs on ads, slashdot runs on ads, the register runs on ads, kotaku runs on ads, tech crunch run on ads. To name a few sites that might be popular here

If those sites can't support themselves they'll more than likely disappear. If all those sites disappeared I feel like plenty of people (maybe not you but more people than not) would realize that they thought they wanted (zero disclose) lead to outcomes they didn't want

I feel like Google is genuinely trying to do something positive here. Provide a way of those sites to still target ads, still check if an ad was effective, still try to check for bad actors making fake clicks, but also be practically un-attributable to a single user.

Going through the actual specs, they really are trying to make it so you can't track and individual but sites can still function based on ads.

Is it in Google own interest? Yes. But it's also in the interest of sites people want which means it's also in the interest of the people who want those sites.

Apple on the other hand, would prefer you be tracked directly by having you download an app for each site where that app can track you way more than a browser with these features can track you.

Even if you somehow think that Mozilla is as bad as Google, which, to me, is a ridiculous notion, you can still choose the lesser of two evils. At the end of the day Mozilla is a foundation, a legal entity which is driven by its mission[0], and Google is a corporation, a legal entity which is driven by profit and data collection. And there are also tons of other browsers that are less bad than the worst one.

To choose Chrome is, again, to bend over backwards to justify continual use of an abusive tool, in the name of convenience.

[0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/

I'd say that makes it an excellent example because it clearly shows that government enforcement of those rules used to have teeth. But since lost them.

KDE never ran any PII data collection programs targeting 70% of browser users, for the sake of selling ads.

Oh you meant impacts positively? No. Chrome is a blight on humanity.

If (as was stated) Google's Chrome is based on KDE, than any user of Google Chrome is necessarily impacted by KDE. Meanwhile there could in theory be some user of KDE who has never used Chrome.

So the set of lives affected by KDE is the same or larger than the set affected by Chrome.

This doesn't seem fair to wholly categorize skepticism of Google's motives as an "ideological stance" if Google hasn't demonstrated any willingness to change.

It's not about acceptance. It's about trust. Trust has two key components:

1) It's earned. Full stop.

2) Regardless of how much trust equity you've built, it can be lost instantly.

Like it or not, this is how trust works. Accepting what Google does is one thing, but at this point there's no reasonable reason to trust it.

> Enhanced ad privacy in Chrome [this is bold, centered, and larger font]

> We’re launching new privacy features that give you more choice over the ads you see.

> Chrome notes topics of interest based on your recent browsing history. Also, sites you visit can determine what you like. Later, sites can ask for this information to show you personalized ads. You can choose which topics and sites are used to show you ads.

> [a graphic]

> To measure the performance of an ad, limited types of data are shared between sites, such as the time of day an ad was shown to you.

> More about ads in Chrome [V]

> You can make changes in Chrome settings

> ["Settings" and "Got it" buttons]

Clicking the V-looking thingy next to "More about ads in Chrome" expands that to add this:

> More useful ads [that is in bold]

> Sites can ask Chrome for information to help personalize the ads you see.

> • Chrome notes topics of interest based on your recent browsing history.

> • Sites you visit can also determine what you like based on your activity on the site. For example, if you visit a site that sells long-distance running shoes, the site might decide that you’re interested in running marathons.

> Later, a site you visit can ask for this information — either your ad topics or ads suggested by sites you’ve visited.

> Chrome auto-deletes topics and sites that suggest ads within 30 days. Or you can block specific topics and sites you don’t like.

> Measuring how well an ad performs [that is in bold]

> Sites you visit can ask Chrome for information to help them measure the performance of their ads. Chrome lets sites collect limited types of data, such as the time of day an ad was shown to you.

> Learn more about how Google protects your data in our Privacy Policy.

I never claimed that. The current estimated timeline for phasing out 3rd party cookies as of last month is:

23Q4 Opt in testing for sites

24Q1 1% disabled

24Q2 fully disabled

https://privacysandbox.com/open-web/

> And once Chrome has phased out third-party cookies the topics API will strictly decrease my privacy, not increase it.

You are free to disable topics, sites, or even the entire system altogether. While it does decrease your privacy in return you can get more relevant ads. With 3rd party cookies if you disable them all you will break things even if those things are unrelated to ads.

My personal picks are Firefox on Windows and Linux, and Firefox or Safari on macOS.

Personal opinion we need to tweak business incorporation rules to firewall ad business from all other types of businesses. Meaning General Motors can't sell ads. And ad companies can't sell cars.

And as someone on this site suggested extend antitrust dumping laws to services.

Firefox, god love it, is a rough and clunky browser by comparison. Sure you can make it what you want, but it’s an investment. As the only viable noncommercial cross-platform option though, what else are we gonna do

There’s zero point in switching from Chrome to Edge.

Firefox to my knowledge has no ads revenue, apples limited ads revenue doesn’t come from the web.

Brave I think is a low-key crypto grift run by a homophobe, but still better than Chrome.

> In other words, just drop chrome. It has never been easier to do, with Edge and Safari readily available

Considering Windows 11 has ads in the operating system, how is Edge not made by an advertising company these days?

Isn’t that pretty much the issue here?

Anyway, what’s really locked? Text messages?

Because I can export pretty much everything else. Images, videos, documents, passwords, bookmarks.

Maybe Apple Music’s playlists?

I have no doubt Google has self-serving motivations here but the result is still a win for us. I wish Firefox had enough leverage to force decisions like this down people's throats whether they like it or not but it just ain't so. Reality is imperfect so I'll take what I can get.

My point is that even this blatant logged in user tracking won’t be able to use user agent strings to track either.

No specific regulation is stopping this. If anything, all the regulation that are getting added have as a goal to reduce the red tape around smaller players and limit the extent of the giant players' monopoly.

If you were thinking about the rules forbidding dark patterns to suck client infos and accelerate growth, it would be a tough sell to be honest.

Also the adtech industry in it's current form is harmful to users. First of it exploits tracking vectors. Secondly it's a malware distribution technique second to none.

I was there for nearly all of it.

I first played with the original Opera when it came out of beta in '96, as an attempt at an alternative to my regulars of Netscape and Thomas Bruce's Cello. It had none of that email or RSS or IRC, just a clean and simple MDI browsing experience.

It was great. By '97 and '98, their capabilities (they added JS, cookies, and image blocking) and performance were solid enough that Opera became my primary browser.

Opera, during '98 and '99, was absolutely the best browser UX around, for me anyway. MDI made up for Windows 95's and later 98's windowing UI which never anticipated that users might have dozens of web pages open at once completely destroying the utility of the Taskbar.

Opera's MDI, like Excel's MDI had done for accountants a decade earlier, was great for "power users" like me, while everyone else making browsers (mostly Netscape and Microsoft but there were a few others) seemed to be targeting newbies or "the enterprise". (The Web was early then, and bringing in new people faster than just about any tech had ever done before, but it didn't have much of the value it does today, so I guess it was reasonable to target new and casual users on the road to critical mass, but after MDI there was almost no going back for me.)

Opera 4, in mid 2000, soon after I joined staff@mozilla.org to help lead the Mozilla project, was the last version I used with any regularity, mostly because I really disliked the redesign and they began cluttering things with each new release while I was trying to convince Mozilla to do the opposite and simplify.

Opera did introduce an MDI switching toolbar then, which is sort of like tabs but really isn't, and that was a good step. But I'd used an actual tabbed browser in the late 90s on occasion, Adam Stiles' Netcaptor, and Opera's MDI toolbar wasn't that. It helped the MDI experience some, but it didn't transform it into tabbed browsing in any meaningful way.

Then Opera 5 introduced the banner ad later that year, just as Mozilla's browser component from the larger internet suite was starting to get decent, good enough that I stopped calling myself an Opera user/fan/booster and started identifying as a Mozilla user.

(The integrated search box on the Opera 5 toolbar did inspire us though, so about a year later we put one in the young Firefox toolbar.)

I checked in with most new Opera releases for many years, but by 2002 Blake and I were deep into working on Firefox and so I was able to help design in some of Opera's earlier simplicity, but with tabs rather than MDI. Rather than wait for Opera to get things back on track, I simply started building the browser I wanted with Firefox.

By the time Opera added email in 2003 and RSS and IRC in 2004, Opera was 8 and 9 years old. Jón S. von Tetzchner's original Opera browser was EOL in 2012 when Presto got cancelled, and was probably dead a year earlier when Jón was forced out (and perhaps even a year before that, when he stepped down as CEO) so yeah, email and RSS and IRC are almost exactly mid-life features in my book. Considering that Opera never recovered after those features were added suggests it was probably over the hill already. Today, and for the last 7 years or so, Opera is little more than a Chinese equity firm's mostly meaningless plaything.

If Google and Chrome are mandatory for work, well, tough luck. But I do have the feeling that the enterprise versions are much less intrusive. And even if, I never do private stuff at my work machines and devices anyway.

Thars very different from the situation we have now where Firefox is well known and open source, and even Chromium’s open source so it can be leveraged by better stewards of the internet.

Don’t get me wrong. My argument is not that Google is better than Microsoft. My argument is simply that the situation we’re facing right now is very different from the IE era. If anything, I’m arguing that the Chrome era is worse because of how much more insidious Google’s actions are.

It was easy for the EU to essentially eliminate the IE threat by forcing MS to unbundle IE and for Firefox (and later chrome) to replace IE purely on the basis of providing a better software. Replacing Chrome on the other hand is a very different kind of problem that is possibly much harder.

> They can try targeting ads to me all they want, but good luck to them, I’m not going to book an expensive holiday in the Himalayas

I don't know if this argument is deliberately understating the issue. I'm going to assume it's not. The real cost of pervasive tracking and ad isn't forcing you to buy something. It's much deeper - like increased insurance premiums, denied insurance (based on data that insurance companies buy from data brokers), locked down and unrepairable devices (to force you to consume ads), massive scale political manipulation (like in case of FB and CA), suppression of labor rights and free-market employment (based on racial profiling, search trend analysis etc) and similar. It's going to cost you more than a ticket to the Himalayas - it's just not very obvious.

> Why not the same for digital services in this internet age?

It isn't hard for large companies to capture regulatory bodies. It isn't even effective in open market or even in cases where lives are at stake (recent cases of air crashes is an example). No regulatory body or the government is going to protect your rights unless you demand it. It's their duty, but it isn't going to happen without your insistence.

I can understand how such fights can be very tiring. However, dissuading others is irresponsible. Everyone has the right to ask for a non-dystopian future.