16 ms·
>This isn’t the first time that Google has used disingenuous arguments to suggest that a privacy protection will backfire. We’re calling this move privacy gasli
by gregdoesit 7y ago
>This isn’t the first time that Google has used disingenuous arguments to suggest that a privacy protection will backfire. We’re calling this move privacy gaslighting, because it’s an attempt to persuade users and policymakers that an obvious privacy protection—already adopted by Google’s competitors—isn’t actually a privacy protection.
Exactly. Firefox and Safari have both implemented and keep improving the type of fingerprint protection that Google is throwing their hands in the air about.
This summary is a thorough response, pointing out just how ridiculous and meritless the original post[1] from Google was.
[1] https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/building-a-more-private-web/ https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/building-a-more-priv...
- xvector 7y agoI am honestly surprised at how ridiculous Google’s original blog post was. Zero nuance.
- dialtone 7y agoYou are aware that Google has vowed to actively fight any sort of fingerprinting right? https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/07/googles-chrome-will-soon-get-new-privacy-features-with-better-cookie-controls-and-anti-fingerprinting-tech/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/07/googles-chrome-will-soon-g...
- magashna 7y ago"Don't be evil" they said, until it became inconvenient. You can't take Google at their word because their word doesn't mean much. Especially when those vows directly contradict their main source of revenue, targeted ads.
- adam12 7y agoI loved Google back in 2005. It's sad to see what it has become.
- airstrike 7y agoI still loved it as late as 2008... remember this? http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/1 http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/1
- vezycash 7y ago“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair
- taurath 7y agoThey’re adding an option, knowing full well that 95% of users will never even think to look in the menu.
- Nicksil 7y agoThe article you linked has Google stating they're planning, over the next few years, to add restrictions to the way fingerprinting is executed. Nothing mentions Google vowing to fight any sort of fingerprinting.
- kube-system 7y agoYes, we're aware. The entire article linked in the OP is a direct response to Google's claims about fighting fingerprinting. The argument made by the Princeton researchers here is that Google's claims are not likely to result in good user privacy.
- SilasX 7y agoTo borrow from Tony Stark: And I vowed to stop eating dairy, but then they named a Ben & Jerry's flavor after me, so ... Or Google's equivalent would be, "Then we realized there was money in it, so ..."
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoI didn't remember this line. III Avengers 14:53, apparently.
- SilasX 7y agoYou mean Infinity War? I'd never heard it referred to as Avengers 3, although I guess it's the third Avengers-branded one. And I edited the actual quote to include "vow"; the original is, "And I swore off dairy, but then Ben and Jerry’s named a flavor after me, so…".
- ocdtrekkie 7y agohttps://seanlennaerts.github.io/mcuverse/ https://seanlennaerts.github.io/mcuverse/ is now the best way to reference MCU lines.
- wpietri 7y agoThat is a delight. For those who haven't seen it, its title is "MCU Bible Verse", and it's a fast searchable list of quotes from the Marvel movies with references done in Bible style.
- dessant 7y ago> You are aware that Google has vowed to actively fight any sort of fingerprinting right? > CTO @ AdRoll I think it would be useful to build a tool that monitors HN users which have a conflict of interest and attempt to discredit valid arguments, or try to derail conversations.
- Liquix 7y agoGreat catch + novel idea. But how would the tool distinguish between those sharing their legitimate controversial opinions (everyone has a right to free speech, no matter how 'brainwashed') vs. malicious active derailing?
- acollins1331 7y agoJust knowing that the person is the CTO of adroll is enough. Let them speak their piece but it's basically a "this comment was paid for by" disclaimer.
- pvg 7y agoIt would be against the rules of the site which disallow this kind of insinuation whether it's automated or not.
- dredmorbius 7y agoEvidence-based demonstration is not insinuation. How HN decides to address that is a separate matter.
- pvg 7y agoThere is nothing 'evidence based' here. There is nothing wrong with the comment, no evidence it is an attempt to 'discredit valid arguments or derail conversation'. That's just a completely baseless accusation and, again, the site guidelines ask people not to do that. The user's affiliation is listed right in their profile, to boot. [Edit: mistook you for the original commenter and fixed that up]
- 7y ago
- lowdose 7y agoIt is double speak.
- tareqak 7y agoIsn't that Google blog article completely ignoring the fact that Google implementing tracking protection would hurt their ability to maintain marketplace dominance in one domain (66%+ of web browsers) in order to further maintain and entrench Google's dominance and profitability in yet another (web advertising), and therefore anti-competitive [0][1]? I can completely understand that the software engineers working on Chrome are separate from the ones working on Ads, but ignoring that conflict interest that is extremely obvious to some outsiders reduces how seriously these arguments can be taken by this group of people. I think Google needs to do more to highlight that their technical choices in Chrome and other Google products and services does not advantage their Ad business if that is truly the case. [0] https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/193530/market-share-of-net-us-online-ad-revenues-of-google-since-2009/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/193530/market-share-of-n... Update: reworded and added a bit more.
- shawnz 7y agoThat original post was written by the same Justin Schuh who went on this ridiculous tirade on twitter claiming he headed the manifest v3 adblocker neutering changes for privacy reasons: https://twitter.com/justinschuh/status/1134092257190064128 https://twitter.com/justinschuh/status/1134092257190064128 Of course it's not possible that this is true since the observational capabilities of the API are explicitly not being deprecated, only the content blocking capabilities. In other official posts they have claimed that the real "justification" is for performance reasons, which I think is equally nonsense.
- staticassertion 7y agoJustin is a trustworthy guy and, while unfortunate, I believe the Chrome security team was acting in good faith with the manifest v3 changes.
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoWe probably shouldn't refer to someone as "trustworthy" who is repeatedly demonstrated to be blatantly lying and spreading clear falsehoods. As the parent stated, manifest v3 changes didn't hide any information from extensions (hence, by definition, not improving privacy), and independent studies completely discredit Justin's claims about the effectiveness of ad targeting.