7 ms·

According to that diff, Google moved from opt-in sharing of DoubleClick cookies, to...potentially default-in, with a possible opt-out option buried in some unid

According to that diff, Google moved from opt-in sharing of DoubleClick cookies, to...potentially default-in, with a possible opt-out option buried in some unidentified settings page?

gcb0 10y ago
gotta love the double standard. when verizon did their super cokie, everyone went crazy (as they should). now that its google (doing that since before verizon it seems) the top coment is a googler throwing the issue to the side in a hitchhikers-guide-to-galaxy way ("you should have checked the alpha centaury records in 2012")
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  The privacy policy actually says you don't have to check: >Our Privacy Policy may change from time to time. We will not reduce your rights under this Privacy Policy without your explicit consent.
  - gajjanag 10y ago
    All fine, but it is left conveniently unspecified what is meant by "reduce your rights". In fact, I don't even know my rights as I was not explicitly presented them in the form of a list in the first place, making the "reduction" ambiguous. Admittedly it is not as easy to spin this as a more explicit ToS, but I am sure that with a sufficient number of legal experts, this has considerable leeway in terms of interpretation.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      Yes, it doesn't appear users have any explicit rights under the policy.
    - Natanael_L 10y ago
      On the other hand, if a court found them to have violated their own policy of not reducing rights without notification then they could get heavily fined.
  - gcb0 10y ago
    Obviously my rigth to privacy is not part of my rights under this privacy policy. because they did change that, according to this very thread. With nice diffs and all.
- magicalist 10y ago
  > when verizon did their super cokie, everyone went crazy (as they should). now that its google... to be fair, one was a thing that happened, the other is a "by my reading of the ToS, they could do this"
  - knorker 10y ago
    also verizon was an actual man in the middle attack on their users.
- nextos 10y ago
  I think the right reaction to this is moving to Android without the mothership. That is an Android stripped from any Google services. I was quite sceptical about Android, partly because it has a foreign userspace and partly because there were no nice vanilla Android forks without Google code and with a focus on privacy. I'm now tired of waiting for any Maemo successor to catch up and I reckon F-droid has become a pretty nice ecosystem. Also the announcement of CopperheadOS, Guardian Project and F-droid joining forces is exciting [1]. [1] https://guardianproject.info/2016/03/28/copperhead-guardian-project-and-f-droid-partner-to-build-open-verifiably-secure-mobile-ecosystem/ https://guardianproject.info/2016/03/28/copperhead-guardian-...
  - Sylos 10y ago
    I've gone the Google-free route a little while ago, and it's really been not nearly as bad as even I thought myself. The only thing that I'm still sort of missing, is the automatic calendar and contact backup. You could do that with something like OwnCloud/NextCloud or a CalDAV-service, but yeah, it is a non-trivial effort. Otherwise, in case you do try it, here's some things that I found useful: If the apps on F-Droid aren't enough for your taste, you can also use Aptoide [0] to access a big portion of the apps that are available on the Play Store. The Amazon Store is also an option, although their store is also not really the greatest when it comes to not invading your privacy. And if you cannot live without some of the apps on the Play Store, or if you've paid for some apps there and would prefer to not lose access to them, I can recommend Raccoon [1] for accessing them. There's also some online-services, like for example Evozi [2], which can download unpaid apps from the Play Store for you, but well, for one, usually only unpaid apps, and secondly, I have yet to find one of those services which is not hopelessly overloaded. I think, if you look more into app-piracy tools, you might also find a web-service which let's you download paid apps, but I've personally just stuck to Raccoon, so I can't make any recommemdations there. Finally, if one of your apps really does need Google Play Services, there's a project aiming to reimplement the functionality without the privacy problems, called microG [3]. I haven't personally tried it yet, but I think, it's somewhat hit-and-miss, so while it's probably worth trying, you shouldn't expect too much from it... [0]: http://www.aptoide.com/ http://www.aptoide.com/ [1]: http://www.onyxbits.de/raccoon http://www.onyxbits.de/raccoon [2]: https://apps.evozi.com/apk-downloader/ https://apps.evozi.com/apk-downloader/ [3]: https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/
kyrra 10y ago
My guess this may be related to personalized ads that you can configure here: https://www.google.com/ads/preferences https://www.google.com/ads/preferences You can control a lot of what you see from that page (which has been around for at least 6 years).
guelo 10y ago
To disable it on Android go to: Settings -> Google -> Ads -> Opt out of interest-based ads But the surprise twist is that Apple does the same thing! To disable it on iPhones go to: Settings -> Privacy -> Advertising -> Limit Ad
- LeoPanthera 10y ago
  That setting on iOS refers to iAd, a service that died because it respected your privacy too much, and was therefore not appealing to advertisers. It seems unfair to compare Apple and Google on user privacy. They are poles apart.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > That setting on iOS refers to iAd, a service that died because it respected your privacy too much That is absurd revisionism: iAd died because Apple stipulated a minimum ad spend of $1 million. They later dropped the minimum spend to $50, but the damage was already done and the platform was in a death-spiral. iAd died because Apple unsuccessful tried to capture the 'premium' end of the Ad Market, not because it "respected user privacy too much".
    - LeoPanthera 10y ago
      I stand by what I said. Citation: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-privacy-insight-idUSKCN0WN0BO http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-privacy-i...
      - themartorana 10y ago
        "Apple is loathe to use customer data to deliver targeted advertising or personalized recommendations..." ...is false. They are loathe to allow anyone else access to it, and sold ads as many exchanges (like Facebook) do - not sharing user info, but promising they can target the demographic you want with precision. And just to drive home the point, they will still be using targeted data when they start showing App Store ads in iOS 10. If you think there is no targeting there, you're hiding your head in the sand. My theory goes like this - Apple gets to still advertise, lose its full iAd sales team, has a captive audience and ad platform and so can set pricing however they want, use native (better) ads instead of banner (worse and dying) ads, and so on.

According to that diff, Google moved from opt-in sharing of DoubleClick cookies, to...potentially default-in, with a possible opt-out option buried in some unidentified settings page?

gcb0 10y ago

gotta love the double standard. when verizon did their super cokie, everyone went crazy (as they should). now that its google (doing that since before verizon it seems) the top coment is a googler throwing the issue to the side in a hitchhikers-guide-to-galaxy way ("you should have checked the alpha centaury records in 2012")

jsprogrammer 10y ago
The privacy policy actually says you don't have to check: >Our Privacy Policy may change from time to time. We will not reduce your rights under this Privacy Policy without your explicit consent.
- gajjanag 10y ago
  All fine, but it is left conveniently unspecified what is meant by "reduce your rights". In fact, I don't even know my rights as I was not explicitly presented them in the form of a list in the first place, making the "reduction" ambiguous. Admittedly it is not as easy to spin this as a more explicit ToS, but I am sure that with a sufficient number of legal experts, this has considerable leeway in terms of interpretation.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    Yes, it doesn't appear users have any explicit rights under the policy.
  - Natanael_L 10y ago
    On the other hand, if a court found them to have violated their own policy of not reducing rights without notification then they could get heavily fined.
- gcb0 10y ago
  Obviously my rigth to privacy is not part of my rights under this privacy policy. because they did change that, according to this very thread. With nice diffs and all.
magicalist 10y ago
> when verizon did their super cokie, everyone went crazy (as they should). now that its google... to be fair, one was a thing that happened, the other is a "by my reading of the ToS, they could do this"
- knorker 10y ago
  also verizon was an actual man in the middle attack on their users.
nextos 10y ago
I think the right reaction to this is moving to Android without the mothership. That is an Android stripped from any Google services. I was quite sceptical about Android, partly because it has a foreign userspace and partly because there were no nice vanilla Android forks without Google code and with a focus on privacy. I'm now tired of waiting for any Maemo successor to catch up and I reckon F-droid has become a pretty nice ecosystem. Also the announcement of CopperheadOS, Guardian Project and F-droid joining forces is exciting [1]. [1] https://guardianproject.info/2016/03/28/copperhead-guardian-project-and-f-droid-partner-to-build-open-verifiably-secure-mobile-ecosystem/ https://guardianproject.info/2016/03/28/copperhead-guardian-...
- Sylos 10y ago
  I've gone the Google-free route a little while ago, and it's really been not nearly as bad as even I thought myself. The only thing that I'm still sort of missing, is the automatic calendar and contact backup. You could do that with something like OwnCloud/NextCloud or a CalDAV-service, but yeah, it is a non-trivial effort. Otherwise, in case you do try it, here's some things that I found useful: If the apps on F-Droid aren't enough for your taste, you can also use Aptoide [0] to access a big portion of the apps that are available on the Play Store. The Amazon Store is also an option, although their store is also not really the greatest when it comes to not invading your privacy. And if you cannot live without some of the apps on the Play Store, or if you've paid for some apps there and would prefer to not lose access to them, I can recommend Raccoon [1] for accessing them. There's also some online-services, like for example Evozi [2], which can download unpaid apps from the Play Store for you, but well, for one, usually only unpaid apps, and secondly, I have yet to find one of those services which is not hopelessly overloaded. I think, if you look more into app-piracy tools, you might also find a web-service which let's you download paid apps, but I've personally just stuck to Raccoon, so I can't make any recommemdations there. Finally, if one of your apps really does need Google Play Services, there's a project aiming to reimplement the functionality without the privacy problems, called microG [3]. I haven't personally tried it yet, but I think, it's somewhat hit-and-miss, so while it's probably worth trying, you shouldn't expect too much from it... [0]: http://www.aptoide.com/ http://www.aptoide.com/ [1]: http://www.onyxbits.de/raccoon http://www.onyxbits.de/raccoon [2]: https://apps.evozi.com/apk-downloader/ https://apps.evozi.com/apk-downloader/ [3]: https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/

kyrra 10y ago

My guess this may be related to personalized ads that you can configure here: https://www.google.com/ads/preferences https://www.google.com/ads/preferences You can control a lot of what you see from that page (which has been around for at least 6 years).

guelo 10y ago

To disable it on Android go to: Settings -> Google -> Ads -> Opt out of interest-based ads But the surprise twist is that Apple does the same thing! To disable it on iPhones go to: Settings -> Privacy -> Advertising -> Limit Ad

LeoPanthera 10y ago
That setting on iOS refers to iAd, a service that died because it respected your privacy too much, and was therefore not appealing to advertisers. It seems unfair to compare Apple and Google on user privacy. They are poles apart.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > That setting on iOS refers to iAd, a service that died because it respected your privacy too much That is absurd revisionism: iAd died because Apple stipulated a minimum ad spend of $1 million. They later dropped the minimum spend to $50, but the damage was already done and the platform was in a death-spiral. iAd died because Apple unsuccessful tried to capture the 'premium' end of the Ad Market, not because it "respected user privacy too much".
  - LeoPanthera 10y ago
    I stand by what I said. Citation: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-privacy-insight-idUSKCN0WN0BO http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-privacy-i...
    - themartorana 10y ago
      "Apple is loathe to use customer data to deliver targeted advertising or personalized recommendations..." ...is false. They are loathe to allow anyone else access to it, and sold ads as many exchanges (like Facebook) do - not sharing user info, but promising they can target the demographic you want with precision. And just to drive home the point, they will still be using targeted data when they start showing App Store ads in iOS 10. If you think there is no targeting there, you're hiding your head in the sand. My theory goes like this - Apple gets to still advertise, lose its full iAd sales team, has a captive audience and ad platform and so can set pricing however they want, use native (better) ads instead of banner (worse and dying) ads, and so on.