My anecdata is that GSuite works completely fine daily driving Firefox.
Anyway...
>We believe the proposed interoperable Attribution standard has the potential to support this objective in a privacy-preserving fashion, and we'll continue to engage on it through the web standards process in collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders including other browser makers.
>After evaluating ecosystem feedback about their expected value and in light of their low levels of adoption, we've decided to retire the following Privacy Sandbox technologies: Attribution Reporting API (Chrome and Android), IP Protection, On-Device Personalization, Private Aggregation (including Shared Storage), Protected Audience (Chrome and Android), Protected App Signals, Related Website Sets (including requestStorageAccessFor and Related Website Partition), SelectURL, SDK Runtime and Topics (Chrome and Android).
Update on Plans for Privacy Sandbox Technologies
https://privacysandbox.com/news/update-on-plans-for-privacy-...
Good thing we didn't build a near-monoculture on this! /s
I'm going to keep using FF as long as it is reasonably workable and hopefully Ladybird comes through too.
jauntywundrkind•3mo ago
If the commentariat hadn't been so persistently snipey about Google throughout (assuming only worst faiths), maybe the broader advertising industry might not have achieved the obstructionist regulatory capture that really slammed on the brakes for doing anything different and maybe perhaps possibly better.
Instead we all get tracked forever.
BizarroLand•3mo ago
I don't care if Google was trying to do something good. Good things accomplished through evil means are evil.
After all, it isn't as if Google isn't already tracking us itself, selling the data it has gleaned from us to advertisers, and then helping the advertisers specifically target us based on its insane amount of data on each of us.
So whinging about how one thing that might have been a little better died due to their evil overlords's middle managers mismanaging it is a waste of energy.
Scoundreller•3mo ago
Yeah, I’m migrating away from Chrome over that.
3-cheese-sundae•3mo ago
jsnell•3mo ago
It was going to remove or restrict features in the web platform that can be used for both tracking and for important non-tracking tasks, and replace them with features that can't be used for tracking but can be used for achieving those tasks. In some cases it meant making sure that data that could be used for tracking was never received ambiently, but had to be requested explicitly. That's why we have the new mess with User-Agent.
You could not just remove the tracking vectors entirely with no replacement, because then you'd be breaking critical workflows that are actually needed for practical operation of websites. That is why Apple for example included a remote attestement mechanism in Safari when adding features to mask IP addresss. (Though they only permit a few of their favored partners to use that attestment mechanism, and these days are being very quiet about it hoping that nobody remembers they did this.)
So, you want to remove the possiblity of using the web API to do tracking? How do you prevent that? The Privacy Sandbox solution was to give each domain a budget of how much entropy they could extract (this is why e.g. moving from the User-Agent header including data by default to the site having to request it was supposed to make sense). In some cases they were going to remove the feature entirely, but instead have the browser achieve the same effect, and provide a verdict or attestation with so little entropy or so little consistency that it could not be used as an effective tracking vector.
It was a doomed program, but they did have good intents, and never deserved the abuse that was heaped upon them. And I will be dancing a little happy jig on the grave of their "IP protection" feature.