Re: [webkit-dev] Request for position on First-Party Sets

2020-06-04 Thread Maciej Stachowiak


> On Jun 3, 2020, at 5:21 PM, Kaustubha Govind  wrote:
> 
> Hi Maciej,
> 
> Thanks for feedback.
> 
> We had previously started the incubation process in WICG, and it was just 
> moved there: https://github.com/WICG/first-party-sets 
> 
> 
> In addition, I have also filed a Proposal Issue in PrivacyCG: 
> https://github.com/privacycg/proposals/issues/17 
> 
Thanks! I expressed support for the above proposal.

> 
> Regarding your concern about preventing (a) Bad faith claims, and (b) The 
> “500 domains” problem. These are absolutely cases that we would consider 
> "unacceptable sets", and our initial thinking was that this would be covered 
> by the "UA Policy" and be subject to review during the 
> acceptance/verification process. In this version of the proposal, we 
> attempted to build maximum flexibility for UAs; but it has since become clear 
> that browsers find this problem worth solving, and also deem it important to 
> agree on a common policy. We are currently working on an initial draft of a 
> policy, and will bring that for discussion when ready. 

That sounds like a positive development, looking forward to it.


> 
> Kaustubha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 3:16 PM Maciej Stachowiak  > wrote:
> 
> (1) I notice that this proposal still exists only in a random personal repo. 
> Could it please be contributed to an appropriate standards or incubation 
> group? Privacy CG would almost certainly welcome this, and I’m sure it would 
> be easy to move to WICG as well. There doesn’t seem to be a reason to keep 
> the proposal in this “pre-incubation” state.
> 
> (2) As discussed in the Privacy CG Face-to-Face, there are two key problems 
> to solve with First Party Sets or any similar proposals:
>   (a) Bad faith claims. How to prevent domains that are not actually 
> owned and controlled by the same party from making claims of being related? 
> For example, an ad network could get its top publishers to enter an 
> association to regain a certain level of tracking powers.
>   (b) The “500 domains” problem. If a first party owns domains that 
> aren’t obviously related and that appear to different and distinct brands to 
> the user, then the user won’t expect to be tracked across them. (Problem 
> named such because of a party known to have hundreds of domains that mostly 
> appear to be totally distinct brands). Users would expect both transparency 
> and control over this.
> 
> The explainer does not really give solutions to these problems. Rather, it 
> defers entirely to each individual browser to define a policy to solve these 
> problems. Deferring to individual browsers on such key points is problematic 
> in a few ways:
>   (i) It doesn’t seem right for a proposed web standard to solve only the 
> easy problem of syntax, and leave the hardest technical problems of semantics 
> to each browser separately.
>   (ii) Deferring in this way is bad for interop.
>   (iii) It’s not entirely clear if there exists any policy that suitably 
> addresses these problems. By only speculating about policies, the explainer 
> fails to provide an existence proof that it is implementable.
>   (iv) If sites come to depend on First Party Sets for correct behavior, 
> there is a risk that every UA will have to adopt a policy that’s the most 
> permissive of any, or that copies the most popular UA, for the sake of 
> compatibility. Thus, leaving this open may not in fact provide a useful 
> degree of freedom.
> 
> Given these issues, I don’t think we’d implement the proposal in its current 
> state. That said, we’re very interested in this area, and indeed, John 
> Wilander proposed a form of this idea before Mike West’s later re-proposal. 
> If these issues were addressed in a satisfactory way, I think we’d be very 
> interested. It does seem that binding strictly to eTLD+1 is not good enough 
> for web privacy features. Driving these issues to resolution is part of why 
> we’d like to see this proposal adopted into a suitable standards or 
> incubation group.
> 
> Regards,
> Maciej
> 
> 
>> On May 27, 2020, at 9:33 AM, Lily Chen > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hi WebKit-dev,
>> 
>> We are requesting WebKit's position on the First-Party Sets proposal as 
>> described in the explainer [1]. Feedback [2] was provided on a previous 
>> version of the proposal, which has since been revised. The TAG review thread 
>> is here [3].
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> [1] Explainer: https://github.com/krgovind/first-party-sets 
>> 
>> [2] Previous feedback: https://github.com/krgovind/first-party-sets/issues/6 
>> 
>> [3] TAG review: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/342 
>> 
>> 

Re: [webkit-dev] Request for position on First-Party Sets

2020-05-27 Thread Maciej Stachowiak

(1) I notice that this proposal still exists only in a random personal repo. 
Could it please be contributed to an appropriate standards or incubation group? 
Privacy CG would almost certainly welcome this, and I’m sure it would be easy 
to move to WICG as well. There doesn’t seem to be a reason to keep the proposal 
in this “pre-incubation” state.

(2) As discussed in the Privacy CG Face-to-Face, there are two key problems to 
solve with First Party Sets or any similar proposals:
(a) Bad faith claims. How to prevent domains that are not actually 
owned and controlled by the same party from making claims of being related? For 
example, an ad network could get its top publishers to enter an association to 
regain a certain level of tracking powers.
(b) The “500 domains” problem. If a first party owns domains that 
aren’t obviously related and that appear to different and distinct brands to 
the user, then the user won’t expect to be tracked across them. (Problem named 
such because of a party known to have hundreds of domains that mostly appear to 
be totally distinct brands). Users would expect both transparency and control 
over this.

The explainer does not really give solutions to these problems. Rather, it 
defers entirely to each individual browser to define a policy to solve these 
problems. Deferring to individual browsers on such key points is problematic in 
a few ways:
(i) It doesn’t seem right for a proposed web standard to solve only the 
easy problem of syntax, and leave the hardest technical problems of semantics 
to each browser separately.
(ii) Deferring in this way is bad for interop.
(iii) It’s not entirely clear if there exists any policy that suitably 
addresses these problems. By only speculating about policies, the explainer 
fails to provide an existence proof that it is implementable.
(iv) If sites come to depend on First Party Sets for correct behavior, 
there is a risk that every UA will have to adopt a policy that’s the most 
permissive of any, or that copies the most popular UA, for the sake of 
compatibility. Thus, leaving this open may not in fact provide a useful degree 
of freedom.

Given these issues, I don’t think we’d implement the proposal in its current 
state. That said, we’re very interested in this area, and indeed, John Wilander 
proposed a form of this idea before Mike West’s later re-proposal. If these 
issues were addressed in a satisfactory way, I think we’d be very interested. 
It does seem that binding strictly to eTLD+1 is not good enough for web privacy 
features. Driving these issues to resolution is part of why we’d like to see 
this proposal adopted into a suitable standards or incubation group.

Regards,
Maciej


> On May 27, 2020, at 9:33 AM, Lily Chen  wrote:
> 
> Hi WebKit-dev,
> 
> We are requesting WebKit's position on the First-Party Sets proposal as 
> described in the explainer [1]. Feedback [2] was provided on a previous 
> version of the proposal, which has since been revised. The TAG review thread 
> is here [3].
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> [1] Explainer: https://github.com/krgovind/first-party-sets 
> 
> [2] Previous feedback: https://github.com/krgovind/first-party-sets/issues/6 
> 
> [3] TAG review: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/342 
> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev


[webkit-dev] Request for position on First-Party Sets

2020-05-27 Thread Lily Chen
Hi WebKit-dev,

We are requesting WebKit's position on the First-Party Sets proposal as
described in the explainer [1]. Feedback [2] was provided on a previous
version of the proposal, which has since been revised. The TAG review
thread is here [3].

Thanks!

[1] Explainer: https://github.com/krgovind/first-party-sets
[2] Previous feedback: https://github.com/krgovind/first-party-sets/issues/6
[3] TAG review: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/342
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev