howdy Google -- I noticed the new Chrome incognito IP address obfuscation proposal uses RWS to determine which orgs could access IP address data across incognito chrome.

Previously I had flagged that the lack of Owned & Operated restrictions for RWS would end up having advertisers rushing into RWS to collect data. Your team correctly pointed out that due to the cap on the number of sites in RWS, this makes the 3rd party cookies less useful -- you can't essentially track someone across the entire internet, only across one grouping of RWS sites. And an ad tech org 'abusing this' would need unique domains to add into RWS sets -- essentially fragmenting their 3rd party cookies and not making them portable across the RWS sets.

But the new Chrome Incognito IP obfuscation proposal exposes IP addresses to orgs in a RWS set, right?

So doesn't this now actually incentivize orgs to get added into numerous RWS sets, so that they can access this portable IP address data and combine it with other fingerprinting data for tracking chrome incognito users? I fully agree that the 3rd party cookies are segmented due to RWS set limits and how this is structured, but this is NOT the same for IP address data. There are no technical restrictions for using IP address data like we have with 1st/3rd party cookie restrictions.

So doesn't the new IP address ingestion proposal have a likelihood of breaking RWS over time, by encouraging abuse of the lack of "owned & operated" restrictions?