Privacy advocates, please see this (how ad tech companies disguise 3rd party cookies as 1st party to defeat ad blocking, browser blocking, and consumer choice)
cc @jason_kint @dsearls @PrivacyMattershttps://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/21/ublock_origin_firefox_unblockable_tracker/ …
-
-
This where policy is critical in cooperation with tech. A cname record isn’t an issue for a service provider contractually bound to not use the data for any purpose than the publisher itself. CCPA would allow this and I don’t think good browsers (Safari/Firefox) would take issue.
-
agreed. but note that fraudsters do not follow policies, guidelines, laws, or anything else for that matter. their only objective is to make money.
- Još 7 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
But if it’s being used to circumvent tracking prevention and allow some ad tech firm to track (collect and use data in an entirely different context/property) it’s entirely problematic and I expect FTC would also care about it. Certainly CCPA post opt-out.
-
Sorry, not gonna wait for regulations to be passed, amended, enforced. Abusing a CNAME record in the DNS is no different from abusing 3rd party scripts, or copying tracking ids from high entropy 3p image or iframe URLs into 1p cookies, or redirect-bounce trackers. We will block.
- Još 12 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
, DNA: 