Vincent

joined 1 year ago
[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 1 points 13 hours 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?

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 1 points 14 hours ago

That is a bit confusing, but the feature called "Fingerprint Protection" (i.e. blocking known fingerprinters) isn't the only protection built in. I'm not motivated enough to find a full list right now, but it also includes e.g. limiting the information in the User Agent header. I did at least find a list of things that were worked on at some point by searching for "Tor uplift", which is a good starting point if you'd like to find more: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Fingerprinting

I'd also add that actually blocking requests to known fingerprinters does help. It's more like camera's getting disabled when you're around: sure, from the point of view of the camera, it's suspicious that it stopped working, but it can't see you, so it doesn't know who is standing out.

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago

Great to hear! I've never used Redox either, so no idea how well that works too.

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

OK, fair enough, that was me allowing myself getting sidetracked. You still haven't answered the earlier question about what extra data PPA provides anyone, though. I'll leave it at that unless you can name one concrete piece of data.

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What more do you think should be done to stop fingerprinting, and does that involve sacrificing usability?

(Also, "almost nothing" feels like a gross exaggeration? Just the Tor Uplift project brought in lots of measures, quite a few of which could even be enabled by default.)

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fingerprinting is about privacy, and the privacy you gain through blockers far outweighs that lost by fingerprinting. So keep it up :)

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Again, bringing Fakespot and Anonym is just moving the goalposts. You were complaining about PPA, and have failed to mention concrete data points that shares about you. It's really not interesting to move on to another subject only to have the goalposts moved again.

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 4 points 1 day ago

It's just more communication about the same thing. Started out with just a mention in the release notes and a checkbox in the settings, which clearly wasn't enough (hence your calling it "silently"), then a more elaborate response on Reddit, and now this more detailed blog post outside of Reddit's walled garden. And I'm sure it's not the last we'll hear of it. (I'd be curious about the experiment's results too, for example.)

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 2 points 1 day ago

No, of course not :) I am proposing that governments curb privacy-invasive tracking, i.e. that the only way advertisers will have left to measure the impact of their ads, is non-invasive methods like PPA.

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Mozilla by itself doesn't have the influence to change it, but with Mozilla's help (i.e. this experiment), others do. Specifically, legislators can have more freedom to implement strict privacy-protecting measures if they have proof that an alternative is available that doesn't cost lots of voters their jobs.

But you can't provide that proof if you don't run the experiment.

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 4 points 1 day ago

There's also the bit where if it doesn't work out no real harm is done (to users - there's obviously reputation damage to Mozilla now): people who already block things by default are not affected at all, and no new information is shared about those who don't. Whereas the upside if it does work out is enormous. In other words, low risk, high gain. Even with low odds, that's a path worth exploring.

 

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

 

I look left and right, and I'm the only one who still uses Firefox.

 

Wat de meisjes te wachten staat bepaalt de kinderrechter na overleg met de kinderbescherming, maar een forse straf is niet per se de oplossing.

 

Burgemeester Reinie Melissant van Gorinchem rondde in maart een hbo-opleiding verpleegkunde af. Ze wilde antwoord op de vraag die een verwarde vrouw haar ooit stelde: ‘Burgemeester, weet u wel wat u mij aandoet als u een crisismaatregel neemt?’

 

De AH heeft voor zover ik kan zien twee bijna identieke producten:

Goed begin

Lekker op brood

Beide zijn huismerk plantaardige halvarine, zelfde hoeveelheid, bijna vergelijkbare verpakking; het voornaamste verschil lijkt een paar toegevoegde vitaminen... Wat is het idee erachter? Waarom zou iemand de een, dan wel de ander kopen?

 

Onder anderen een medewerker van een huisartsenpraktijk voerde informatie in bij een chatbot die gebruiktmaakt van kunstmatige intelligentie.

 

The latest Firefox Nightly build provides a feature that dramatically improves how its picture-in-picture (PIP) feature works — and I'm totally digging

 

Jaap Bierman | voorzitter OV-NL & directeur HTM: Jaap Bierman wil dat de sector van het openbaar vervoer „de hand vooral in eigen boezem steekt”. Want Den Haag heeft afgelopen jaren juist „serieus publiek geld aan ons besteed”.

157
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Vincent@feddit.nl to c/firefox@lemmy.ml
 

Copied from reddit:

Firefox CTO here.

There’s been a lot of discussion over the weekend about the origin trial for a private attribution prototype in Firefox 128. It’s clear in retrospect that we should have communicated more on this one, and so I wanted to take a minute to explain our thinking and clarify a few things. I figured I’d post this here on Reddit so it’s easy for folks to ask followup questions. I’ll do my best to address them, though I’ve got a busy week so it might take me a bit.

The Internet has become a massive web of surveillance, and doing something about it is a primary reason many of us are at Mozilla. Our historical approach to this problem has been to ship browser-based anti-tracking features designed to thwart the most common surveillance techniques. We have a pretty good track record with this approach, but it has two inherent limitations.

First, in the absence of alternatives, there are enormous economic incentives for advertisers to try to bypass these countermeasures, leading to a perpetual arms race that we may not win. Second, this approach only helps the people that choose to use Firefox, and we want to improve privacy for everyone.

This second point gets to a deeper problem with the way that privacy discourse has unfolded, which is the focus on choice and consent. Most users just accept the defaults they’re given, and framing the issue as one of individual responsibility is a great way to mollify savvy users while ensuring that most peoples’ privacy remains compromised. Cookie banners are a good example of where this thinking ends up.

Whatever opinion you may have of advertising as an economic model, it’s a powerful industry that’s not going to pack up and go away. A mechanism for advertisers to accomplish their goals in a way that did not entail gathering a bunch of personal data would be a profound improvement to the Internet we have today, and so we’ve invested a significant amount of technical effort into trying to figure it out.

The devil is in the details, and not everything that claims to be privacy-preserving actually is. We’ve published extensive analyses of how certain other proposals in this vein come up short. But rather than just taking shots, we’re also trying to design a system that actually meets the bar. We’ve been collaborating with Meta on this, because any successful mechanism will need to be actually useful to advertisers, and designing something that Mozilla and Meta are simultaneously happy with is a good indicator we’ve hit the mark.

This work has been underway for several years at the W3C’s PATCG, and is showing real promise. To inform that work, we’ve deployed an experimental prototype of this concept in Firefox 128 that is feature-wise quite bare-bones but uncompromising on the privacy front. The implementation uses a Multi-Party Computation (MPC) system called DAP/Prio (operated in partnership with ISRG) whose privacy properties have been vetted by some of the best cryptographers in the field. Feedback on the design is always welcome, but please show your work.

The prototype is temporary, restricted to a handful of test sites, and only works in Firefox. We expect it to be extremely low-volume, and its purpose is to inform the technical work in PATCG and make it more likely to succeed. It’s about measurement (aggregate counts of impressions and conversions) rather than targeting. It’s based on several years of ongoing research and standards work, and is unrelated to Anonym.

The privacy properties of this prototype are much stronger than even some garden variety features of the web platform, and unlike those of most other proposals in this space, meet our high bar for default behavior. There is a toggle to turn it off because some people object to advertising irrespective of the privacy properties, and we support people configuring their browser however they choose. That said, we consider modal consent dialogs to be a user-hostile distraction from better defaults, and do not believe such an experience would have been an improvement here.

Digital advertising is not going away, but the surveillance parts could actually go away if we get it right. A truly private attribution mechanism would make it viable for businesses to stop tracking people, and enable browsers and regulators to clamp down much more aggressively on those that continue to do so.

12
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Vincent@feddit.nl to c/thenetherlands@feddit.nl
 

Hoewel we erkennen dat de gesanctioneerde mediakanalen Russische propaganda verspreiden, vinden wij niet dat dit een reden is om de vrijheid van informatievergaring te schenden. Zeker niet als hier geen gedegen democratisch proces aan vooraf is gegaan. Wij en een aantal andere partijen zijn van mening dat de manier waarop deze sancties zijn ingevoerd onjuist is. En zo werd de Freedom of Information Coalition (FOIC) geboren.

ISPs die zich in deze coalitie verenigd hebben:

Ondersteund door onder andere Bits of Freedom en de Nederlandse Vereniging van Journalisten.

 

Mastodon is een publiek alternatief voor commerciële online sociale media platforms. In een pilot kan de overheid het platform ontdekken. Wat zijn de eerste lessen?

Via @DigitaleOverheid@social.overheid.nl

 

En de sigarettenverkoop in supermarkten wordt verboden, de regels voor kinderopvang worden versoepeld en er verandert nog meer.

view more: next ›