fmaury/seirdy.one
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.sr.ht/~seirdy/seirdy.one synced 2024-09-19 20:02:10 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Add footnotes with clarifications

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Rohan Kumar 2021-04-16 18:50:34 -07:00
parent 30bf11b8ba
commit 1e7f1260d7
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 1E892DB2A5F84479
1 changed files with 11 additions and 3 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

14
content/posts/permissions-policy-floc-misinfo.md
View file

@ -5,11 +5,12 @@ description: Recently, people have been telling webmasters to add a Permissions-
how the Permissions-Policy header works.
outputs:
- html
footnote_heading: Notes
title: "Misinformation about Permissions Policy and FLoC"
---
This post was [written in a hurry](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/219878-a-lie-can-run-round-the-world-before-the-truth) in response to some misinformation about Google's newest Web antifeature, Federated Learning of Cohorts (FLoC). Google's FLoC is an attempt to track users even when their browsers (rightly) block third-party cookies.
A [certain blog post](https://paramdeo.com/blog/opting-your-website-out-of-googles-floc-network) has been making rounds, instructing webmasters everywhere to add the following HTTP response headers to all their pages:
A [certain blog post](https://paramdeo.com/blog/opting-your-website-out-of-googles-floc-network)[^1] has been making rounds, instructing webmasters everywhere to add the following HTTP response headers to all their pages:
```
Permissions-Policy: interest-cohort=()
@ -30,7 +31,7 @@ As per a [post](https://web.dev/floc/) on Google's web development blog, web.dev
How Permissions Policy works
----------------------------
I don't think that every webmaster should have to read every single W3C spec (I certainly haven't). I do, however, think that people who offer prescriptive advice and interpretations of a spec should be expected to read the relevant spec first.
I don't think that every webmaster should have to read every single W3C spec. I do, however, think that people who offer prescriptive advice and interpretations of a spec should be expected to read the relevant spec first.
Here's [a copy](https://www.w3.org/TR/permissions-policy-1/) of the Permissions Policy spec. Essentially, the `Permissions-Policy` header allows a webmaster to whitelist which parties (if any) are allowed to leverage certain APIs. If I make a website that doesn't perform any geolocation directly but I load a third-party widget that does, I can forbid all parties from using Geolocation APIs by setting the following Permissions-Policy:
@ -56,4 +57,11 @@ If you're concerned about Google breaking the spec and opting you in even after
Don't tack a new header onto every request because someone read a post by someone else who read part of a GitHub README.
And please, don't spam maintainers of web server/backend software to tell them to include this header by default. You don't need to add this permission policy to every request, just as you don't need to wear a helmet for every form of physical activity.
Take a breath
-------------
Please, don't spam maintainers of web server/backend software to tell them to include this header by default. Don't tell webmasters that they have a _moral obligation_ to add a Permissions Policy header either.[^2] You don't need to add this permission policy to every request, just as you don't need to wear a helmet for every form of physical activity.
[^1]: This isn't the only post making rounds, but it did hit the front page of a certain orange-colored website. I'm not blaming the author; if I hadn't encountered the Permissions Policy spec earlier, I probably would have also taken the advice the author read at face-value.
[^2]: I've noticed both of these behaviors on several threads online. I've decided against linking to them because I think the discourse there has heated past the point of reason.