3 ms·

This has a lot of potential. This fist stage is a blow to the Google data monopoly. I obviously don't know if there's a second stage, but there might be, if t

This has a lot of potential. This fist stage is a blow to the Google data monopoly. I obviously don't know if there's a second stage, but there might be, if this spreads awareness that private coroporations store everything they do online—if it makes Americans more privacy conscious—there could be a second stage. The second stage would be to introduce strong privacy regulations applied to everyone. This, again, would hurt Google more than the ISPs. To someone like me who doesn't think Google can ever be hurt enough, this looks like a good law.

devwastaken 9y ago
I think it has a lot more potential be exploited. With Google, atleast you could choose to directly use google, or you can use tracking blockers. You had a decent level of choice. Without these privacy protections as law, anything and everything you visit, google or not, is available. So, sites that don't have google trackers on them, or don't collect specific data, like what kind of URL's your google account has visited while inside of a site - are now trackable, and sellable. ISP's also can associate what you've visited to your actual service line. ISP's know if your IP has changed, and everything about your service. Google does not, not unless you've logged in or have cookies of your sessions, both completely optional. I also don't think that having URL's themselves is a good metric. Google does a lot more than just URL's. Their JS trackers know what you're doing on a page, which gives more context to the data collected. So, Google and the big giants of online advertising I don't think are going to be outcompeted by ISP's any time soon. If anything, I would think that the data ISP's sell would be bought quite cheaply, because its only URL's.
- cronjobber 9y ago
  You're right that this is worse for user privacy, which is exactly why there's hope the new rules could kindle an American conversation on online privacy. If that ends up giving the US strict rules for everybody, that should include Google. (Note to submitter: Including "Trump" in headlines seems to trigger a penalty on HN. I guess the site's original headline would have kept your post afloat a little longer.)

devwastaken 9y ago

I think it has a lot more potential be exploited. With Google, atleast you could choose to directly use google, or you can use tracking blockers. You had a decent level of choice. Without these privacy protections as law, anything and everything you visit, google or not, is available. So, sites that don't have google trackers on them, or don't collect specific data, like what kind of URL's your google account has visited while inside of a site - are now trackable, and sellable. ISP's also can associate what you've visited to your actual service line. ISP's know if your IP has changed, and everything about your service. Google does not, not unless you've logged in or have cookies of your sessions, both completely optional. I also don't think that having URL's themselves is a good metric. Google does a lot more than just URL's. Their JS trackers know what you're doing on a page, which gives more context to the data collected. So, Google and the big giants of online advertising I don't think are going to be outcompeted by ISP's any time soon. If anything, I would think that the data ISP's sell would be bought quite cheaply, because its only URL's.

cronjobber 9y ago
You're right that this is worse for user privacy, which is exactly why there's hope the new rules could kindle an American conversation on online privacy. If that ends up giving the US strict rules for everybody, that should include Google. (Note to submitter: Including "Trump" in headlines seems to trigger a penalty on HN. I guess the site's original headline would have kept your post afloat a little longer.)