3 ms·

A little bit of corporate newspeak (and digging): Ad URL: https://static.adsafeprotected.com/sca.17.4.95.js https://static.adsafeprotected.com/sca.17.4.95.js

A little bit of corporate newspeak (and digging): Ad URL: https://static.adsafeprotected.com/sca.17.4.95.js https://static.adsafeprotected.com/sca.17.4.95.js JS Domain: adsafeprotected.com Domain Owner: Integral Ad Science, Inc[0] Google's recent stance on the matter of fingerprinting[2]: >Chrome also announced that it will more aggressively restrict fingerprinting across the web. When a user opts out of third-party tracking, that choice is not an invitation for companies to work around this preference using methods like fingerprinting, which is an opaque tracking technique. Google doesn’t use fingerprinting for ads personalization because it doesn't allow reasonable user control and transparency. Nor do we let others bring fingerprinting data into our advertising products. The important part being: _Nor do we let others bring fingerprinting data into our advertising products._ The same company advertises their fingerprinting capabilities: >Browser and Device Analysis: We analyze the technological fingerprints of browsers and devices in order to uncover bots fraudulently posing as human users. We can validate what type of mobile or desktop device a browser is running on, providing additional context with which to identify fraud. And it is this fingerprinting that gets them selected as a Google Brand Safety and Viewability Preferred Measurement Partner[1] >New York, NY – Integral Ad Science (IAS) has been selected as a preferred partner in Google’s Measurement Program for both brand safety and viewability. Partners were selected after meeting rigorous standards for accuracy and using reliable methodologies to measure KPIs that matter for marketers. The program is designed to make it easier for advertisers to source trusted, third-party measurement providers. The gist of it being that Google has heavy cognitive dissonance, with their advertising wing rewarding partners that fingerprint users (against their own policies), and the Chrome team barely managing to introduce some anti-fingerprint measures, which are clearly not enough. [0]: https://integralads.com/capabilities/ad-fraud/ https://integralads.com/capabilities/ad-fraud/ [1]: https://integralads.com/news/google-selects-ias-brand-safety-viewability-preferred-measurement-partner/ https://integralads.com/news/google-selects-ias-brand-safety... [2]: https://blog.google/products/ads/transparency-choice-and-control-digital-advertising/ https://blog.google/products/ads/transparency-choice-and-con...

pdkl95 7y ago
> Google has heavy cognitive dissonance Perhaps, but I think some of that behavior only appears dissonant. Like the NSA, Google often uses carefully constructed language that is designed to sound like a statement about a topic of concern without saying anything actually useful. For example: > Google doesn’t use fingerprinting for ads personalization The only reason to add "...for ads personalization" is if they are using fingerprinting for for other purposes. This could include other ad-related purposes like attribution. Google claims about not using specific data for a specific purpose are probsabl7 true. They simply fingerprint (and probably correlate) everything else.

pdkl95 7y ago

> Google has heavy cognitive dissonance Perhaps, but I think some of that behavior only appears dissonant. Like the NSA, Google often uses carefully constructed language that is designed to sound like a statement about a topic of concern without saying anything actually useful. For example: > Google doesn’t use fingerprinting for ads personalization The only reason to add "...for ads personalization" is if they are using fingerprinting for for other purposes. This could include other ad-related purposes like attribution. Google claims about not using specific data for a specific purpose are probsabl7 true. They simply fingerprint (and probably correlate) everything else.