Re:Compression efficiency with shared dictionaries in Chrome
by jsnell on Wednesday March 06, 2024 @01:48PM
(#39619551)
The obvious answer is that they are not lying.
You're making three assertions, none backed by any evidence. That this is a tracking vector, that it's primarily intended to be a tracking vector, and that they're lying about their motivations.
But your reasoning fails already at the first step, since you just assumed malice rather than do any research. This is not a useful tracking vector. The storage is partitioned by the top window, and it is cleared when cookies are cleared. It's also not really a new tracking vector, it's pretty much the same as ETags.
You're making three assertions, none backed by any evidence. That this is a tracking vector, that it's primarily intended to be a tracking vector, and that they're lying about their motivations.
But your reasoning fails already at the first step, since you just assumed malice rather than do any research. This is not a useful tracking vector. The storage is partitioned by the top window, and it is cleared when cookies are cleared. It's also not really a new tracking vector, it's pretty much the same as ETags.