On: Google’s FLoC Is a Terrible Idea

[dleslie]

When site A and site B are able to communicate to each other that I am a unique individual who has a particular session or sessions open.

[michaelbuckbee → dleslie]

My understanding of FLOC is that it would meet that standard.

That it would independently identify you to Site A and Site B as a person in a particular cohort.

[dleslie → michaelbuckbee]

That's enough information to begin to uniquely identify me, along with other commonly available factors; like GeoIP and so forth.

[SideQuark → dleslie]

Answering any packet request from your end is enough to uniquely identify you. How do you propose TCP/IP would work without unique addresses?

[smolder → SideQuark]

In many cases yes, but broadly, IP address is not a basis for determining an individual. It's difficult to know it's not some other NAT'd user or dynamically assigned.

[ehsankia → smolder]

And why is the same not true for FLoC? How come when it comes to FLoC, the bare minimum amount of information is magically enough to identify you, but when it comes to IP, you just shrug it away as it being too difficult?

[smolder → ehsankia]

Personally, I didn't make any claim about FLoC magically identifying people. It does help to identify people, though. IP address you can't do without, FLoC would be additional information beyond that, so it helps identify people.

[dleslie → SideQuark]

From my original comment:

> This is precisely the role that privacy-protecting legislation should be undertaking.

[NavinF → dleslie]

Legislation will not solve the technical problem that the guy you're replying to brought up. Are they gonna write distributed communication protocols into law now?

[dleslie → NavinF]

They can write private data sharing restriction legislation.

[dillondoyle → michaelbuckbee]

in addition i haven't heard that google is dramatically changing GA tracking?