7 ms·

Google Has Quietly Dropped Ban on Personally Identifiable Web Tracking (2016)

280 points by ForHackernews 8y ago

mtmail 8y ago
The reaction back in October 2016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12760003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12760003
- dang 8y ago
  Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12769178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12769178
hopler 8y ago
The article is not accurate. The article is about this change[0], which is simply clarifying that DoubleClick isn't the only data source and linking to the new control panel where the opt-in/out settings UI is (there was no link before). The policy document change is an improvement, and isn't a change in privacy. If too don't like the new policy (up to you), then logically you didn't like the old policy either. https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/archive/20160325-20160628/ https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/archive/20160325-201...
- mda 8y ago
  Please don't disturb the daily HN Google bashing session.
wtmt 8y ago
This needs (2016) in the title. It has also been discussed before, as pointed by mtmail here.
berry_sortoro 8y ago
Its funny because recently I read a article about why Google supposedly is so much better then FB because its supposedly "hides them personal ID of people away from advertisers. I think its laughable any way you look at it. If they can not see in a screen somewhere does not really matter. Google ifself knows of course and if course they are using it. Any claim about "inaccurate" bla whatever its clear that they are in the businesses of building profiles on people in one way or the other no matter what kind if silly settings you check. And its gonna get out to people you do not want to one way or the other, hell probably already through some "channel" like Cambridge Analytica for FB. What they can come up with to ensure people its all not that bad is a since in itself and if you you even engage with it you are just lying to yourself.
petilon 8y ago
If you want to see an example of the devious means now employed by Google, open Chrome settings and turn off "Allow Chrome sign-in". Then go to Gmail and sign in. You are now signed into Chrome, regardless of the setting. By signing into Gmail you are sharing your identity with the browser itself. Microsoft's Chromium-based Edge can't arrive soon enough.
- Iolaum 8y ago
  Why not try Firefox today?
- sneakernets 8y ago
  That sounds like a bug, but knowing Google, it's a "bug".
- chooseaname 8y ago
  > Microsoft's Chromium-based Edge can't arrive soon enough. What about Firefox?
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    When Firefox goes Chromium-based, swarms of locusts will erupt from the ground, the moon will turn red as mars, and apparitions of RMS will be seen wandering the streets, telling people "I told you so."
    - reitanqild 8y ago
      I think gp didn't mean wait for Firefox to use Chromium rather: why not use Firefox already? Come for the better browser, get spyware free as a bonus ;-)
      - JadeNB 8y ago
        > Come for the better browser, get spyware free as a bonus ;-) Unless I misinterpret you, that really needs a hyphen.
resters 8y ago
Just a reminder that Google is a major defense contractor. The incentive to create highly targeted ads is the same basic incentive that exists to create highly targeted threat assessments and social credit scores.
- eitally 8y ago
  Wait wat!? Source, please?
  - resters 8y ago
    Google has a large sales force that targets government agencies, defense, etc., with its products and services. As for the incentives, it's a logical argument: 1) Google is a large, powerful entity. 2) Powerful entities benefit from a preservation of the status quo. 3) Powerful entities must stay on the good side of governments. 4) Social upheaval is a threat to Google's business model. 5) Google's ad business has led to tools that are superior to those built by governments. Thus, the sales team realizes the opportunity to sell the proprietary tech to government entities. Once this business relationship begins the team effort to suppress some ideas and amplify others, to militarize the core technology, becomes impossible to stop. Google is at this point a defense contractor to many governments. There has recently been hubbub about Google behaving in this way toward the Chinese government, but what people are missing is that the core service google offers is desired by all governments. Put succinctly, governments all want a great firewall and a social credit score. This is what Google and Facebook sell. Consider that in the US it's conceivable that a search interface could be built for private user data that also includes the feature of automatically submitting and obtaining a warrant so that all searches performed are legal. The friction associated with needing to obtain a warrant has been removed completely in the US, and likely never even existed under other regimes. In either case, Google is happy to militarize all of the data and technology that it has built. AI (Google's main thrust) is a particularly insidious form of this because a "trained" AI is a unique combination of data and algorithm. In essence, the data set is baked into the algorithm. So Google can (for example) train a gait analysis algorithm intended to predict violent acts on citizens of one regime, and sell the resulting "trained" product to other regimes. Governments have a strong need for information about thought crimes and evidence for premeditation of all sorts of antisocial acts. Google and Facebook have created trillions in market value for firms by doing the same thing for consumer behavior but it's worth many more Trillions when applied to criminality and the softer sister definition, "anti-social" behavior. When will learning about a third party candidate be viewed as an antisocial act by Google and Facebook? Quite likely this happened in 2017.
macinjosh 8y ago
The more 'advantages' Google gives Chrome in the area of tracking/data collection the more I worry that websites will begin to only test for and/or work on Chrome. Seems like it could soon be a logical business decision since it has large market share, it is cross platform, and is heading in the direction of being hostile towards priacy, i.e. enables business models based on tracking and data collection. Tell your friends and family to ditch Chrome for Firefox.
JustADay 8y ago
Well good thing I use Safari

280 points by ForHackernews 8y ago

The reaction back in October 2016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12760003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12760003

dang 8y ago
Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12769178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12769178

hopler 8y ago

The article is not accurate. The article is about this change[0], which is simply clarifying that DoubleClick isn't the only data source and linking to the new control panel where the opt-in/out settings UI is (there was no link before). The policy document change is an improvement, and isn't a change in privacy. If too don't like the new policy (up to you), then logically you didn't like the old policy either. https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/archive/20160325-20160628/ https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/archive/20160325-201...

mda 8y ago
Please don't disturb the daily HN Google bashing session.

wtmt 8y ago

This needs (2016) in the title. It has also been discussed before, as pointed by mtmail here.

berry_sortoro 8y ago

Its funny because recently I read a article about why Google supposedly is so much better then FB because its supposedly "hides them personal ID of people away from advertisers. I think its laughable any way you look at it. If they can not see in a screen somewhere does not really matter. Google ifself knows of course and if course they are using it. Any claim about "inaccurate" bla whatever its clear that they are in the businesses of building profiles on people in one way or the other no matter what kind if silly settings you check. And its gonna get out to people you do not want to one way or the other, hell probably already through some "channel" like Cambridge Analytica for FB. What they can come up with to ensure people its all not that bad is a since in itself and if you you even engage with it you are just lying to yourself.

petilon 8y ago

If you want to see an example of the devious means now employed by Google, open Chrome settings and turn off "Allow Chrome sign-in". Then go to Gmail and sign in. You are now signed into Chrome, regardless of the setting. By signing into Gmail you are sharing your identity with the browser itself. Microsoft's Chromium-based Edge can't arrive soon enough.

Iolaum 8y ago
Why not try Firefox today?
sneakernets 8y ago
That sounds like a bug, but knowing Google, it's a "bug".
chooseaname 8y ago
> Microsoft's Chromium-based Edge can't arrive soon enough. What about Firefox?
- whatshisface 8y ago
  When Firefox goes Chromium-based, swarms of locusts will erupt from the ground, the moon will turn red as mars, and apparitions of RMS will be seen wandering the streets, telling people "I told you so."
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    I think gp didn't mean wait for Firefox to use Chromium rather: why not use Firefox already? Come for the better browser, get spyware free as a bonus ;-)
    - JadeNB 8y ago
      > Come for the better browser, get spyware free as a bonus ;-) Unless I misinterpret you, that really needs a hyphen.

resters 8y ago

Just a reminder that Google is a major defense contractor. The incentive to create highly targeted ads is the same basic incentive that exists to create highly targeted threat assessments and social credit scores.

eitally 8y ago
Wait wat!? Source, please?
- resters 8y ago
  Google has a large sales force that targets government agencies, defense, etc., with its products and services. As for the incentives, it's a logical argument: 1) Google is a large, powerful entity. 2) Powerful entities benefit from a preservation of the status quo. 3) Powerful entities must stay on the good side of governments. 4) Social upheaval is a threat to Google's business model. 5) Google's ad business has led to tools that are superior to those built by governments. Thus, the sales team realizes the opportunity to sell the proprietary tech to government entities. Once this business relationship begins the team effort to suppress some ideas and amplify others, to militarize the core technology, becomes impossible to stop. Google is at this point a defense contractor to many governments. There has recently been hubbub about Google behaving in this way toward the Chinese government, but what people are missing is that the core service google offers is desired by all governments. Put succinctly, governments all want a great firewall and a social credit score. This is what Google and Facebook sell. Consider that in the US it's conceivable that a search interface could be built for private user data that also includes the feature of automatically submitting and obtaining a warrant so that all searches performed are legal. The friction associated with needing to obtain a warrant has been removed completely in the US, and likely never even existed under other regimes. In either case, Google is happy to militarize all of the data and technology that it has built. AI (Google's main thrust) is a particularly insidious form of this because a "trained" AI is a unique combination of data and algorithm. In essence, the data set is baked into the algorithm. So Google can (for example) train a gait analysis algorithm intended to predict violent acts on citizens of one regime, and sell the resulting "trained" product to other regimes. Governments have a strong need for information about thought crimes and evidence for premeditation of all sorts of antisocial acts. Google and Facebook have created trillions in market value for firms by doing the same thing for consumer behavior but it's worth many more Trillions when applied to criminality and the softer sister definition, "anti-social" behavior. When will learning about a third party candidate be viewed as an antisocial act by Google and Facebook? Quite likely this happened in 2017.

macinjosh 8y ago

The more 'advantages' Google gives Chrome in the area of tracking/data collection the more I worry that websites will begin to only test for and/or work on Chrome. Seems like it could soon be a logical business decision since it has large market share, it is cross platform, and is heading in the direction of being hostile towards priacy, i.e. enables business models based on tracking and data collection. Tell your friends and family to ditch Chrome for Firefox.

JustADay 8y ago

Well good thing I use Safari