Gregory's Server
@Schouten_B And now that you mention it, if you look you will find I mention the "only for specific providers" matter later in this same thread. In my view, this makes the implementation *worse* than Google's. Google's implementation is open to all, whereas Firefox's is limited to partners whose identities *Firefox does not disclose*, at least in its public messaging about the feature. Practically better maybe, but morally worse.
|
4 comments
 @mcc I believe that is because the list of sites enrolled is not set, but any site can request a token to participate. I.e. it is open, but with some additional safeguards. I believe the currently enrolled sites are available publicly, but I'd need to check. @mcc Hmm. Can't find the list. In any case, one of the unfortunate side-effects of the way privacy is guaranteed in the system, is by having larger amounts of submissions. The more submissions, the more noise can be added and the better individual privacy. This is the reason for an opt-out model. Now I realize if your stance is 'ads are bad and should go away', that is not a convincing argument. But it's still relevant :-). @mcc (Oh, and more technical details can be found here as well: https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experiment) |
@Schouten_B I do not agree that this system is "completely different" from Google's. It is hard to tell because Firefox has disclosed less information than Google has (perhaps there is another document with technical details somewhere else) but my initial read of the information I have is that Google's "Ad Lab"/"Ad Privacy" comprises three reporting features and Firefox has implemented a specific one of them wholesale, apparently (per their statement) with an eye to formalizing it as a standard.