[HN Gopher] DuckDuckGo Announces Plans to Block Google's FLoC
___________________________________________________________________
DuckDuckGo Announces Plans to Block Google's FLoC
Author : yannikyeo
Score : 73 points
Date : 2021-04-14 16:49 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.searchenginejournal.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.searchenginejournal.com)
| pentagrama wrote:
| > DuckDuckGo finds it especially concerning that getting tracked
| via FLoC is not optional - all Chrome users are automatically
| opted into it.
|
| Is not clear to me that when Chrome will get updated with FLoC:
|
| 1 - FLoC will be auto-enabled for current users/new installations
| but will be possible for a regular user opt-out from the Chrome
| settings panel.
|
| 2 - Idem to 1 but users will not be able to opt-out at all.
|
| Someone can clarify that?
|
| 1 is already a terrible way to introduce the "feature" but 2 is
| even worse.
| dont__panic wrote:
| Has Google allowed Chrome users to opt out of other tracking
| "features" in the past? They've gone as far as deprecating add-
| on APIs required for ad-blockers to work efficiently, I don't
| think the Chrome product folks care to give users any real
| choice in this.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Even if DuckDuckGo is obviously doing some marketing here, I
| think it does not matter, we should collectively act against
| Google/Facebook/Amazon/Apple while we still can.
| gary_0 wrote:
| Here's DuckDuckGo's announcement, on their Spread Privacy blog:
| https://spreadprivacy.com/block-floc-with-duckduckgo/
| andred14 wrote:
| Good
| llarsson wrote:
| I find tracking abhorrent.
|
| However, the more I read about FLoC, the more I want to also read
| a blog post that shows just how finely I have been identified.
| The practice of the theory. Like the browser fingerprinting sites
| we all know and love.
|
| Is there a site out there that shows how poorly this new tech
| protects my privacy?
|
| It would be great to show to people.
| j-james wrote:
| The EFF's Cover Your Tracks tool may be what you're looking
| for.
|
| https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
| h4waii wrote:
| The EFF has https://amifloced.org/ if that helps any.
| gundmc wrote:
| This seems to just tell you if the feature is enabled, not
| what information or interests your FLoC provides?
|
| Or does it provide more information on your cohort if it's
| enabled in your browser? (It wasn't in mine.)
|
| There are a lot of scary words and graphics and implications,
| but I'm not sure this does a good job explaining what the
| issue with the proposal is or why it's bad for privacy.
| ev1 wrote:
| The TLDR seems to boil down to that the EFF will not be
| able to tell you what information or interests your FLoC
| provides, but large advertisers and ad companies will be
| able to - because they run the same code and can read FLoC
| identifiers off a ton of people.
|
| To EFF your floc code is just noise.
|
| To large ad networks, they see that people with floc code
| xxx typically show up on sites a,b,c,d,e,f,g because they
| have the ability to read floc identifiers originating from
| those sites.
| [deleted]
| gundmc wrote:
| Google could introduce a feature that cures cancer and DuckDuckGo
| would come out against it.
|
| I'm not making an argument for or against FLoC, but this is
| hardly surprising given ddg's positioning as a Google competitor
| and their previous marketing campaigns against them.
| bshipp wrote:
| What an odd comment. FLoC is about as far from curing cancer as
| one could possibly get, even as a metaphor for online privacy.
|
| Thank goodness someone is taking a stand against the continuous
| creep of online privacy invasions, even if they're likely just
| a bolder in the middle of a large river.
| giomasce wrote:
| Yes, they could.
|
| But, somewhat surprisingly, they don't. They prefer to
| introduce features that violate users' privacy.
| Darmody wrote:
| So what should they do?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-14 23:02 UTC)