An update on Mozilla’s PPA experiment and how it protects user privacy while testing cutting edge technologies to improve the open web.

  • unskilled5117@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I will say it again: The way i read it, it sounds like the companies will get some general data if their ads work, without a profile about you being created. I am fine with that.

    Just imagine what a boon it would be for the “normal“ less tech savvy, if advertisers switched to a more privacy respecting technology like this.

    If more privacy focused people don’t like it, they can simply disable it by ticking one box, without negative consequences (unlike content blockers and similar techniques where a website can penalize you, turned off PPA is not detectable).

    It has no downsides as far as I am concerned. It doesn’t give advertisers additional data that they wouldn’t already be able to get, it just creates the option of measuring their ads in a privacy respecting way.

    • LWD@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Companies get extra data through Firefox, which now acts on behalf of the ad corporations.

      But advertisers have better options, both for reach, or for privacy. They can simply do A/B testing on their own, without involving a third party…

      Method: PPA Topics Using different links
      Corporate creator Facebook Google -
      Needs users to trust 3rd party? Yes (Mozilla) Yes (Google) No
      ~% browsers it works on <3% >60% 100%
      Guaranteed privacy increase? No No No*

      *If you trust the advertiser, they can do it on their own. If you don’t trust the advertiser, then the additional third party does nothing.

      • unskilled5117@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Companies get extra data through Firefox

        You mean extra data compared to them using any other advertising model, like google advertising? Do you have a source for that?

        Because that is what PPA has to be compared to, and not to no ad measurement at all. It‘s meant to be replacing other advertising measurement techniques.

        The comparison chart looks like it‘s copied from somewhere, would you mind sharing? I wouldn‘t mind a deeper dive into the topic.

        • Vincent@feddit.nlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          In particular, these claims never get accompanied by examples of what extra data these companies get. Presumably, because there is none.

          • LWD@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            You know what they say about people who assume, especially when it’s about a company that had to sneak their changes into the browser in a way that would make even Google executives blush.

            • Vincent@feddit.nlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              …except when you assume that data gets leaked despite literally nobody having been able to point to anything that indicates that it’s happening?

              • LWD@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                It is Mozilla’s job to show us what data is shared. Mozilla failed on that front.

                If you want to be the Mozilla evangelist, then show us all on Mozilla’s behalf exactly what data gets sent over, so that we can replicate it.

                • Vincent@feddit.nlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Here:

                  When a user interacts with an ad or advertiser, an event is logged in the browser in the form of a value. That value is then split into partial, indecipherable pieces and then encrypted. Each piece is addressed to a different entity — one to Divvi Up at ISRG and one to Mozilla — so that no single entity is ever in possession of both pieces. (…) As an additional protection, the pieces are submitted to Divvi Up and Mozilla using an Oblivious HTTP relay operated by a third organisation (Fastly). This ensures that Divvi Up and Mozilla do not even learn the IP address of the indecipherable piece they receive.

        • LWD@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          That is correct: why would any corporation choose to sideline their current advertisement model by creating an extra solution that doesn’t even tap 3% of the market, while abandoning the data collection they already have?

          If you trust the advertisement company to provide private ads, they can do it without the browser working on their behalf.

          And if you don’t trust the advertisement company, there’s nothing the browser can do to make their ads list privacy invasive… Besides blocking it.

          The source to the table is me, but I can provide the article that inspired it.

          • ahal@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            The mere fact this technology exists gives legislators a tool in their toolbox. I could imagine a future where the EU mandates use of PPA in certain circumstances.

            • Vincent@feddit.nlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              Or more importantly, forbids the use of privacy-invasive methods of measuring ad performance.

          • unskilled5117@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            why would any corporation choose to sideline their current advertisement model by creating an extra solution that doesn’t even tap 3% of the market

            In its current form, I concur, you might be correct. But:

            The current implementation of PPA in Firefox is a prototype, designed to validate the concept and inform ongoing standards work at the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).Source

            So the point is to create a system that other browsers could adopt. The other thing that could drive this, is the GDPR compliance. PPA is compliant, while a lot of the other technologies aren’t, and businesses are feeling more pressure. There is a reason that Meta participated in parts of the development.

            All I can say is: Dont let perfect be the enemy of good. This is so far only a test.

            Edit: I found the time to look at your source article, I had actually read it before when it was posted a month back. I will comment on their views, some right, others which can be debated, and on other details were they are just wrong. In general privacyguides is a great resource but I find this particular opinion piece to be lacking.

            Spoiler, because I it's a long comment already

            First off, for a healthy debate I will define two things for me. Tracking = creating a profile, ad measurement = measuring the ads effectiveness. If an Ad can be measured without a profile about me being created, I don’t consider it tracking.

            This “Privacy-Preserving Attribution” (PPA) API adds another tool to the arsenal of tracking features that advertisers can use, which is thwarted by traditional content blocking extensions.

            They assume that everyone uses a content blocker everywhere. Privacyguides and Mozilla have different target audiences. Privacyguides caters to people who are interested and have enough technical knowledge to try to prevent tracking. Mozilla is trying to cater to “normal”(in the sense of the majority) people who are not interested/ not knowledgable enough to do so. So there are two starting points. The “normal” who are already tracked by current advertising systems and privacy-focussed-people who try their best to prevent tracking. Privacy-focussed-people can just turn off PPA -> no more data gathered than before. But it is the “normal” people who have something to gain. If PPA replaces traditional ad tracking, less data and only anonymized data is gathered. The ads are measured, but users are not tracked. So it’s not a tool added but a tool improved to provide greater privacy.

            Mozilla constantly fails to understand the basic concept of consent. Firefox developers seem to see their position as shepherds, herding the uninformed masses towards choices they interpret to be “good for them.” […] One Mozilla developer claimed that explaining PPA would be too challenging, so they had to opt users in by default.

            While I agree, that the communications could have been handled better, Mozilla has a point. Firefox isn’t only meant for tech-enthusiast, but also for people who won’t take the time or aren’t able to grasp the concept of PPA without doing a lot of reading, and that’s the majority. So Firefox developers are absolutely right to make choices, that they deem right for users. And that PPA is a challenging concept is proven by the author not fully grasping it themselves, as I will point out later.

            The way it works is that individual browsers report their behavior to a data aggregation server (operated by Mozilla), then that server reports the aggregated data to an advertiser’s server. The “advertising network” only receives aggregated data with differential privacy, but the aggregation server still knows the behavior of individual browsers! This is essentially a semantic trick Mozilla is trying to pull, by claiming the advertiser can’t infer the behavior of individual browsers by re-defining part of the advertising network to not be the advertiser. […]In this particular case, Mozilla and their partner behind this technology, the ISRG (responsible for Let’s Encrypt), could trivially collude to compromise your privacy.

            The aggregation server is actually two different servers by two different parties (Mozilla and ISRG). Yes in theory they could collude and combine the data (they are transparent about that). But why would they, they are trying to create a system that’s better than before. I concur that trust has to be placed in them but you still have the option to turn it off and the alternatives is other ad tracking networks collecting the data with a profile about you being created.

            Finally, there is no reason for this technology to exist in the first place, because tracking aggregate ad conversions like this can already be done by websites without cookies and without invading privacy, using basic web technology.

            All an advertisement has to do is link to a unique URL

            This is, were they are just plain wrong/dishonest. A Url would just be able to measure something if the add was clicked. PPA can measure ads that were seen but a purchase happened at a later time. This is what current tracking technology does but PPA can do it, without a profile about you being created, so a privacy gain.

            Some people might say that Mozilla should just block ads outright to prevent any tracking. The problem is that the Internet is funded by ads. Mozilla themselves through their connection to Google is. Privacyguides is right to point out that there is a conflict of interest. But what Mozilla is trying to achieve is to prevent tracking (profile creation about you) and not ads. I am in favor of that. I like services to exist, because they fund themselves through ads, I just don’t want to be tracked.

      • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Do you want to see Mozilla and Firefox die a hero, or do you want to see it live long enough to become the villain?

        With the US ruling of Google being a monopoly, Mozilla is bound to lose a lot of their income if that’s the decision that comes to pass. I’m happy with the courts ruling Google as a monopoly (because they are), but it does mean Mozilla needs to try to make money some other way.