Adtech relies on the OpenRTB 2.5/2.6 spec for tracking, you would have removed 1 identifier out of a hundred (one that isn’t really used anyway given SSAI is so popular). In addition to that, cookie expiry timers are typically set to 365 days meaning you’re VPN would need to enabled at all times to not invalidate multi-hop. WebStorage API based trackers tend to be indefinite.
EDIT: If anyone is looking for more specifics about WHY IP addresses and multi-hop don’t matter, the spec includes a mention:
BEST PRACTICE: Proper device IP detection in mobile is not straightforward. Typically it involves starting
at the left of the x-forwarded-for header, skipping private carrier networks (e.g., 10.x.x.x or
192.x.x.x), and possibly scanning for known carrier IP ranges. Exchanges are urged to research and
implement this feature carefully when presenting device IP values to bidders.
The issue is that mobile is so prevalent and mobile networks rely so extensively on CG-NAT that even with XFF headers, there’s no good way to tell if you are going to get an IP address that actually matters. You could potentially put in a lot of auction time trying to figure that out and still just end up with a private address that’s unusable. So, aside from the devicetype and the geo object which is used for geo targets and fencing, the device object isn’t useful in tracking. Instead adtech uses the user object. This object should contain all your GDPR specifics, any EIDs, 1st party cookie IDs, etc. Even if those change, there usually exists backend mapping that allows for vendors to correlate different user IDs as being the same user ultimately.
Yeah, multi-hop is pointless for tracking. The logic to it is crazy too. People think VPNs make them anonymous (they don’t), but they also think multi-hop makes them MORE anonymous. So anonymity is kind of an absolute concept. Either you are or you are not anonymous. You can’t be more anonymous than anonymous. There is no +1.
The logic to it is crazy too. People think VPNs make them anonymous (they don’t), but they also think multi-hop makes them MORE anonymous.
Whether multi-hop matters to tracking is far and away a different discussion than whether multi-hop “makes you anonymous”.
I too disagree with the original comment, but also believe the pendulum swung too far the other direction in your replies.
Situations differ. Threat models differ. More hops can, from direct personal experience, make the difference in tracking. Your claim of “…multi-hop is pointless for tracking.” has too broad of a scope to be correct.
Adtech relies on the OpenRTB 2.5/2.6 spec for tracking, you would have removed 1 identifier out of a hundred (one that isn’t really used anyway given SSAI is so popular). In addition to that, cookie expiry timers are typically set to 365 days meaning you’re VPN would need to enabled at all times to not invalidate multi-hop. WebStorage API based trackers tend to be indefinite.
ORTB spec: https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/OpenRTB-API-Specification-Version-2-5-FINAL.pdf
EDIT: If anyone is looking for more specifics about WHY IP addresses and multi-hop don’t matter, the spec includes a mention:
The issue is that mobile is so prevalent and mobile networks rely so extensively on CG-NAT that even with XFF headers, there’s no good way to tell if you are going to get an IP address that actually matters. You could potentially put in a lot of auction time trying to figure that out and still just end up with a private address that’s unusable. So, aside from the devicetype and the geo object which is used for geo targets and fencing, the device object isn’t useful in tracking. Instead adtech uses the user object. This object should contain all your GDPR specifics, any EIDs, 1st party cookie IDs, etc. Even if those change, there usually exists backend mapping that allows for vendors to correlate different user IDs as being the same user ultimately.
So it can matter.
barely, efectively meaningless
Yeah, multi-hop is pointless for tracking. The logic to it is crazy too. People think VPNs make them anonymous (they don’t), but they also think multi-hop makes them MORE anonymous. So anonymity is kind of an absolute concept. Either you are or you are not anonymous. You can’t be more anonymous than anonymous. There is no +1.
Whether multi-hop matters to tracking is far and away a different discussion than whether multi-hop “makes you anonymous”.
I too disagree with the original comment, but also believe the pendulum swung too far the other direction in your replies.
Situations differ. Threat models differ. More hops can, from direct personal experience, make the difference in tracking. Your claim of “…multi-hop is pointless for tracking.” has too broad of a scope to be correct.
What specifically about multi-hop makes you think it improves your security? Be specific. What is your “direct personal experience”?
Remember to read the rest of that sentence:
So, no. Not really.
It doesn’t change the contradiction.
You almost had the rest of the sentence there:
That doesn’t change the contradiction.
You’re trying to argue without evidence (like I had provided). To summarize these exchange so far its:
Is there some evidence you’d like to provide or is it going to be another “nuh-uh!”?