[gerbler]

> However, it is likely that the same FLoC IDs or range of IDs will be associated with someone.

This seems all quite speculative. In the first paragraph they describe FLoc IDs as changing constantly - why would they assume new IDs are not being generated, and groups are not constantly being mixed?

[EMM_386]

Further down it quotes ...

> “If your behavior doesn’t change, the algorithm will keep assigning you in that same cohort, so some users will have a persistent FLoC ID associated with them — or could."

When combined with other information that is already being used (such as canvas fingerprinting and other techniques), this looks like it can help narrow it down even further.

> “We can use that as another signal to create a stable identifier for them.”

[3np]

Arguably for advertisers it’s a benefit - if your behavior changes to that extent, likely you’d be better targeted by different ads.

[twobitshifter]

Right and floc was made for advertisers. They’re the customers here.

[hluska]

It’s extremely speculative. While I’m allergic to ad tech, I’m even more allergic to poverty, so I have occasion to work with/around that side of the industry.

The best way to explain it is that a lot of companies have been making significantly more money than their technology is worth. A number of initiatives have attacked the data-in side of the equation so the underlying tech is showing how questionable it really is.

This type of research should be filed under “could be big” but at this point it’s closer to public relations for ad tech firms than “the sky is falling, become Amish.”