RE: [projectvrm] adblock sells out

["Mike O'Neill" < >]

I am saying PETs like PB are important, and definitely worth supporting but
they are not the end of the story. We need a multi-faceted approach.



-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Behlendorf 
[mailto:
 ]
 
Sent: 06 October 2015 19:21
To: Mike O'Neill 
<
 >
Cc: 'ProjectVRM list' 
<
 >
Subject: RE: [projectvrm] adblock sells out

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Mike O'Neill wrote:
> Per-origin UIDs can easily be correlated, by using the IP address as you
> say. The IP address (further qualified by other headers such as the UA
> string) only has to remain constant for a few hours while the subject is
> linked using the set of collected UIDs. A database of UIDs is assembled
(all
> of which are globally unique with a  multi-year expiry). It is trivial to
> correlate them, with a low probability of fuzziness from NAT IP sharing,
and
> must happen on a massive scale.
>
> Also, there are other ways to stop this kind of tracking, without the
> wholesale deletion of cookies.

Defeating cookies is the first front in a long path towards a less 
trackable web, this is true.  At the end of the day we get to onion 
routing and distributed CDNs and things like IPFS.  I do think browser 
makers should consider reducing the entropy in their user-agent strings. 
But it sounds like you're arguing that Privacy Badger is pointless because 
we don't yet have a perfectly untrackable web, and that's the perfect 
being the enemy of the good (and the better-than-alternatives).

Brian

>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Behlendorf 
> [mailto:
 ]
> Sent: 06 October 2015 17:23
> To: Mike O'Neill 
> <
 >
> Cc: 'ProjectVRM list' 
> <
 >
> Subject: RE: [projectvrm] adblock sells out
>
> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Mike O'Neill wrote:
>> This means that people maybe unaware when tracking behaviour is
>> undetected. Already Privacy Badger by design does not detect tracking
>> that uses first-party cookies, and these are just as capable in
>> communicating people's web activities to third-parties.
>
> But those first-party cookies can't be correlated across sites, which is
> the day trade of the third-party trackers and where the leaks come from.
> That is, NYTimes might share its first-party-cookie-based clickstream logs
> with a third party, but that third party could not correlate that person
> at another location (aside from IP address), and could not be used to
> tailor ads on a third-party site to a "NYTimes reader".  That makes the
> third party data mavens much less valuable.
>
> You won't be able to ban first-party tracking unless you turned off
> cookies (and thus authenticated sessions) entirely and prevented sites
> from keeping their own access logs.  Good luck with that.
>
> Brian
>