IG avails in Chrome incognito

[patmmccann]

Specifically with regards to the Protected Audience API (now renamed from FLEDGE), many visitors to a website might well have zero Interest Groups stored on their browser. This could be because they have not visited many commercially-relevant websites recently, or because they have cleared some data, or because they are in incognito mode, or because they have chosen to turn off the API using a browser-provided control. ...
Originally posted by @michaelkleber in #335

Why not make IG available in incognito mode? I thought they were privacy safe?

[dmdabbs]

Prior discussion of IG incognito persistence here: #401 (comment).

[patmmccann]

MYy hope is that Chrome persists IGs across the profiles to make PAAPI more commercially attractive

[MattMenke2]

I think it's worth noting that one of the goals of incognito is not to persist data about the incognito session locally once the last incognito window is closed. That would make joins, leaves, and updating prevWins/numBids in incognito problematic, among other concerns.

[fhoering]

I think it's worth noting that one of the goals of incognito is not to persist data about the incognito session locally once the last incognito window is closed.

What about people who keep their incognito tab open all the time ?
But I agree it looks much less interesting to activate PAAPI in this case, like a very degraded PAAPI mode on short timeframes.

[anderagakura]

@fhoering Really? I have to admit that I'm curious about the use cases.

What about people who keep their incognito tab open all the time ?

[patmmccann]

re-opening due to ongoing discussion

[MattMenke2]

What about people who keep their incognito tab open all the time ? But I agree it looks much less interesting to activate PAAPI in this case, like a very degraded PAAPI mode on short timeframes.

If they ever close their incognito tabs, we still need to make sure we don't preserve any data on disk. We could theoretically have in-memory stores of per-session Protected Audience data that go away when all Incognito tabs do, but that's very different than the proposal here.

[fhoering]

but that's very different than the proposal here.

Different in which way and different from which proposal ? My comment looks aligned with the ticket name "IG avails in Chrome incognito".

But to be honest I'm not sure it is worth pursuing either. There is some theoretical value but it looks too low and too unvaluable.

[MattMenke2]

The question here was about sharing data between Incognito and non-Incognito, as I understand it, which is different from having Incognito-only state that is never persisted to disk and goes away at the end of an Incognito session.

[fhoering]

OK. I was rather asking of having them only available in Incognito in some form.