4 ms·

> "If y'all had just handed over your wallet when we asked, we wouldn't have had to hurt you. So really, this is your fault." Seeing as Google doesn't engage i

> "If y'all had just handed over your wallet when we asked, we wouldn't have had to hurt you. So really, this is your fault." Seeing as Google doesn't engage in fingerprinting and are actively taking steps to block it[1], I don't think this is a fair characterization of Google's position. [1]: https://blog.chromium.org/2019/05/improving-privacy-and-security-on-web.html https://blog.chromium.org/2019/05/improving-privacy-and-secu...

nerdponx 7y ago
Where does it say they don't engage in it? Naturally, blocking other companies' fingerprinting is important to their business model.
Fellshard 7y ago
Doesn't reCaptcha alone rely extensively on fingerprinting?
- rbritton 7y ago
  It does. The more anti-fingerprinting measures you enact, the harder it is to pass to the point that it becomes nearly impossible to do.
  - ignoramous 7y ago
    Unless of course you're state-of-the-art neural net. Oh the irony...
gruez 7y ago
>This is why Chrome plans to more aggressively restrict fingerprinting across the web. One way in which we’ll be doing this is reducing the ways in which browsers can be passively fingerprinted, so that we can detect and intervene against active fingerprinting efforts as they happen. That seems like a 180 from their stance 2 years ago[1]. Their statement is low on details so I'll believe it when I see it. Right now the only browser with meaningful fingerprinting protection is tor browser/firefox. [1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=49075 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=49075
- Ajedi32 7y ago
  The initial statement was low on details because it was just an statement of intention. Specific steps they're taking to combat fingerprinting are visible in their public bug tracker[1]. Also, let's not forget the privacy budget[2] system they just announced in the OP. That seems rather promising. [1]: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component%3APrivacy%3EFingerprinting%20&can=2 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component... [2]: https://github.com/bslassey/privacy-budget https://github.com/bslassey/privacy-budget
  - Drdrdrq 7y ago
    The cynic in me is 100% sure they calculated the impact of these changes to their ability to track users and found the impact negligible. Still, it probably does make tracking more difficult for other advertisers, so there's that.
    - cpeterso 7y ago
      Since Google has cookies dropped by google.com properties that they can use for user tracking, I'm surprised they haven't worked harder to reduce the effectiveness of fingerprinting in Chrome. They could make user tracking more difficult for ad companies that don't have cookies dropped by sites as popular as google.com while accurately marketing the Chrome changes as improving user privacy.
danShumway 7y ago
Google does engage in fingerprinting in multiple of its products, but even if it didn't I don't think I would change my analogy. Google's position here is, "obviously you're going to have to let us track you some way, and our way (cookies) is better than fingerprinting." It's still blaming privacy-conscious users for the actions that advertisers have taken, because those unreasonable privacy-conscious people couldn't be content with just blocking some of the trackers. There's an underlying tone to this article that reads as, "you all messed this up because you didn't just leave well enough alone. Now we'll come in and fix it, but you're gonna have to compromise with us when we do." From my perspective -- no, users didn't break anything. This isn't our fault, and we should be allowed to broadly block cookies without being tracked in more pervasive ways. But, if it makes you feel better you can change a word in my characterization to read: > "If y'all had just handed over your wallet when we asked, they wouldn't have had to hurt you. So really, this is your fault."
driverdan 7y ago
I've downvoted you because, as others have pointed out, your statement that Google doesn't fingerprint is factually incorrect.
- Ajedi32 7y ago
  I disagree. No one has posted any evidence that Google engages in fingerprinting users beyond simple user-controllable mechanisms like cookies. (Though several have indeed made that assertion with no evidence.)
  - driverdan 7y ago
    ReCaptcha and Analytics both fingerprint.
    - lmkg 7y ago
      Google Analytics does not fingerprint. Hits are identified with a user either by a first-party cookie (called the Client ID), or with a user-id value provided by the site owner. The site owner could provide their own fingerprinting value as a user-id, but the fingerprinting is not done by analytics itself. (There are some cases where identifiers are pulled in from other systems, but none of them can be used as the basis for unifying users.)
      - driverdan 7y ago
        GA records a lot of data about the user such as screen resolution and browser version. It doesn't do full fingerprinting to identify unique users but it uses many common fingerprinting techniques.
        Spivak 7y ago
        Like collecting any data at all? I mean “what browsers and what versions do I need to support” and “what resolutions do I need to design for” are pretty benign questions.
usefulcat 7y ago
Considering that we're talking about a company which owes probably nearly all of its not inconsiderable fortune to predicting people's behavior via mass surveillance, this comment seems to miss the forest for the trees a bit.

nerdponx 7y ago

Where does it say they don't engage in it? Naturally, blocking other companies' fingerprinting is important to their business model.

Fellshard 7y ago

Doesn't reCaptcha alone rely extensively on fingerprinting?

rbritton 7y ago
It does. The more anti-fingerprinting measures you enact, the harder it is to pass to the point that it becomes nearly impossible to do.
- ignoramous 7y ago
  Unless of course you're state-of-the-art neural net. Oh the irony...

gruez 7y ago

>This is why Chrome plans to more aggressively restrict fingerprinting across the web. One way in which we’ll be doing this is reducing the ways in which browsers can be passively fingerprinted, so that we can detect and intervene against active fingerprinting efforts as they happen. That seems like a 180 from their stance 2 years ago[1]. Their statement is low on details so I'll believe it when I see it. Right now the only browser with meaningful fingerprinting protection is tor browser/firefox. [1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=49075 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=49075

Ajedi32 7y ago
The initial statement was low on details because it was just an statement of intention. Specific steps they're taking to combat fingerprinting are visible in their public bug tracker[1]. Also, let's not forget the privacy budget[2] system they just announced in the OP. That seems rather promising. [1]: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component%3APrivacy%3EFingerprinting%20&can=2 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component... [2]: https://github.com/bslassey/privacy-budget https://github.com/bslassey/privacy-budget
- Drdrdrq 7y ago
  The cynic in me is 100% sure they calculated the impact of these changes to their ability to track users and found the impact negligible. Still, it probably does make tracking more difficult for other advertisers, so there's that.
  - cpeterso 7y ago
    Since Google has cookies dropped by google.com properties that they can use for user tracking, I'm surprised they haven't worked harder to reduce the effectiveness of fingerprinting in Chrome. They could make user tracking more difficult for ad companies that don't have cookies dropped by sites as popular as google.com while accurately marketing the Chrome changes as improving user privacy.

danShumway 7y ago

Google does engage in fingerprinting in multiple of its products, but even if it didn't I don't think I would change my analogy. Google's position here is, "obviously you're going to have to let us track you some way, and our way (cookies) is better than fingerprinting." It's still blaming privacy-conscious users for the actions that advertisers have taken, because those unreasonable privacy-conscious people couldn't be content with just blocking some of the trackers. There's an underlying tone to this article that reads as, "you all messed this up because you didn't just leave well enough alone. Now we'll come in and fix it, but you're gonna have to compromise with us when we do." From my perspective -- no, users didn't break anything. This isn't our fault, and we should be allowed to broadly block cookies without being tracked in more pervasive ways. But, if it makes you feel better you can change a word in my characterization to read: > "If y'all had just handed over your wallet when we asked, they wouldn't have had to hurt you. So really, this is your fault."

driverdan 7y ago

I've downvoted you because, as others have pointed out, your statement that Google doesn't fingerprint is factually incorrect.

Ajedi32 7y ago
I disagree. No one has posted any evidence that Google engages in fingerprinting users beyond simple user-controllable mechanisms like cookies. (Though several have indeed made that assertion with no evidence.)
- driverdan 7y ago
  ReCaptcha and Analytics both fingerprint.
  - lmkg 7y ago
    Google Analytics does not fingerprint. Hits are identified with a user either by a first-party cookie (called the Client ID), or with a user-id value provided by the site owner. The site owner could provide their own fingerprinting value as a user-id, but the fingerprinting is not done by analytics itself. (There are some cases where identifiers are pulled in from other systems, but none of them can be used as the basis for unifying users.)
    - driverdan 7y ago
      GA records a lot of data about the user such as screen resolution and browser version. It doesn't do full fingerprinting to identify unique users but it uses many common fingerprinting techniques.
      - Spivak 7y ago
        Like collecting any data at all? I mean “what browsers and what versions do I need to support” and “what resolutions do I need to design for” are pretty benign questions.

usefulcat 7y ago

Considering that we're talking about a company which owes probably nearly all of its not inconsiderable fortune to predicting people's behavior via mass surveillance, this comment seems to miss the forest for the trees a bit.