![]() ![]() Last year, it was caught inserting its own referral codes to some cryptocurrency trading site links, making it undeniable that it's a commercial company first and foremost and willing to sacrifice some of its users' privacy to make money. That said, Brave also hasn't always acted in its users' best interest. Amazon could then peel off my polka-record buyers, leaving me worse off. However, FLoC may stick users browsing in Chrome in a “polka music lover” cohort, and begin having my users broadcast their “polka love” to other sites, including Amazon. My site is successful because I’ve identified a niche market that is poorly served elsewhere, which allows me to charge higher than, say, Amazon prices. Say I run a website selling polka music, and I serve a dedicated community of die-hard polka fans. The creators of the browser even go as far as recommending sites to opt out of FLoC, as it could also harm them by leaking and sharing user behavior with competitors. Brave says that "a 'privacy preserving system' that relies on a single, global determination of what behaviors are 'privacy sensitive,' fundamentally doesn’t protect privacy, or even understand why privacy is important." What's sensitive in one country or region might be fully acceptable in others, and vice versa. The problem is also Google's global approach. ![]() ![]() While Google promises not to use sensitive data to target users, it still has to analyze all data and then determine whether or not it's sensitive. A "privacy preserving system" that relies on a single, global determination of what behaviors are "privacy sensitive," fundamentally doesn’t protect privacy, or even understand why privacy is important.īrave goes on to say that FLoC promotes a false sense of what privacy is and why it's important. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |