this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
440 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

59415 readers
1166 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Google did it again.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DarienGS@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I read this article from top to bottom and didn't find a clear explanation of why you should disable this feature.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because it doesn't protect your privacy (Google still tracks everything), but it gives Google an even stronger monopoly to make taking other actions to protect your privacy less viable.

The end game is still their web DRM pretending to be "security" to make it impossible for you to choose how a page is displayed to you.

[–] DarienGS@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Google doesn't track everything. The browser determines your interests locally; the only information shared with Google (and advertisers) is which broad topics you've recently shown an interest in.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It’s an underhanded way of implementing a browser supported foolproof adblock detector. Even its stated goal of “give advertisers a unified, browser backed, ‘private’ way of tracking you for advertising” isn’t especially appealing or useful when you get something better than that from adblock anyway. Turning it off will be reflected in telemetry sites gather about feature availability and hopefully low adoption numbers discourage them from taking advantage of this “feature”.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hmm, not having read up on the tech, what's stopping someone from making a Firefox plugin that just spoofs fake data back? It's all done client side if I'm understanding, so everything necessary to do so must be available. Only wrinkle I could see is if they have signing and ship the cert with Chrome and regularly rotate it. It's still not impossible in that case, just more annoying.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My understanding is vague but the sandbox environment is cryptographically integrity checked in some fashion that makes the spoofing you’re suggesting difficult or impossible.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well, I did a little digging, and while parts of the stuff proposed by Google might be tricky, the actual topics portion of the API looks pretty easy to spoof. It seems like there's really only two things that need to be done. The first is to spoof the feature detection logic to return true for calls to document.featurePolicy.allowsFeature('browsing-topics'). The second would be to return randomly selected topics from all available topics from calls to document.browsingTopics() (care might need to be taken to return a consistent set of random topics to a given page, otherwise clever sites might poll the API many times to detect randomness). That really seems to be all there is to the topics API part of this. As for spoofing the rest of the web DRM parts, that's going to be a lot trickier, but with control of the browser I can't see how it could be made insurmountable.

[–] pjhenry1216@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Because spying on you is bad. They mention the privacy implications in the article.