![]() ![]() This prompted me to write an article on the topic in an effort to stem the tide. Case in point: When the release was foreshadowed in WWDC, it led to a tidal wave of misinformation spreading on the web. I’m worried this Privacy Report only serves to confuddle and obfuscate rather than to illuminate and educate. If this is difficult to follow, I don’t blame you. Nor are WebKit’s ITP measures applied to these domains automatically (I repeat: WebKit does not use blocklists - it classifies domains algorithmically). The purpose of this approach is without a doubt to just show how the biggest trackers on the web have been prevented from cross-site tracking, but the measures are not limited to just these domains. The Privacy Report means, quite simply, that WebKit’s global tracking protections, such as truncating all cross-site referrers and blocking all cookie access in third-party context have been applied to all the cross-site HTTP requests sent from the site, including but not limited to those shown in the Privacy Report. So the Privacy Report is a bit misleading. The decision of whether or not a domain should be “flagged” as having tracking capabilities is done based on the user’s browsing behavior and not against a domain blocklist. WebKit’s ITP is algorithmic and on-device. The funky thing is that these domains might not actually have been flagged by Intelligent Tracking Prevention yet. ![]() To put it in another way - if the website is making requests to domains in DDG’s Tracker Radar list, then those domains will be listed in the Privacy Report. What does that mean? It means that the Safari browser has detected HTTP requests to the listed domains, and that the listed domains are found in DuckDuckGo’s Tracker Radar lists. The first thing to note is the terminology.ĭ was prevented from profiling you across N websites. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |