Open kostajh opened 10 months ago
We'll have more to say on this in the near future, thanks for the question (and apologies for not responding sooner).
We'll have more to say on this in the near future, thanks for the question (and apologies for not responding sooner).
Thanks! Somewhat related: it seems that many people have the impression that IP Protection will proxy all requests to all sites (like a built-in, always-on VPN) or it will be the equivalent to Apple iCloud Relay. It would be nice to clearly differentiate IP Protection from a VPN and iCloud Relay at the top of the README, as well as in the public facing documentation on the Privacy Sandbox site.
We'll have more to say on this in the near future, thanks for the question (and apologies for not responding sooner).
hi @miketaylr, just checking, did this clarification happen? If so, we could link it here and resolve this issue.
Not yet, but we can link it here when it does. Thanks.
It would be nice to provide more details about what the proposal considers to be "eligible third-party traffic". The README says:
I assume this means using some list like https://github.com/lightswitch05/hosts?
Will client-side code that makes requests to non-advertiser domains and subdomains be impacted by the proxy? For example, if visiting
en.wikipedia.org
, it's possible for client-side code to call other domains (login.wikimedia.org
,commons.wikimedia.org
) or subdomains (e.g. another language Wikipedia likeel.wikipedia.org
): should we anticipate that all such calls would get routed through the IP Protection proxy, because Chrome would see these requests as third-party traffic?