6 ms·

If you block third party cookies without having built out fingerprinting prevention, trackers switch from cookies to fingerprinting, which on balance is probabl

by jefftk 7y ago

If you block third party cookies without having built out fingerprinting prevention, trackers switch from cookies to fingerprinting, which on balance is probably worse. And if you prevent that, sites need to serve ads without any information about the user they're serving them to, and make about half as much money. Chrome is working on fingerprinting resistance and developing privacy preserving APIs that can replace third party cookies: https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-sandbox https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-sandb... https://blog.chromium.org/2019/08/potential-uses-for-privacy-sandbox.html https://blog.chromium.org/2019/08/potential-uses-for-privacy... https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/building-a-more-private-web/ https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/building-a-more-priv... (Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)

mherrmann 7y ago
I would assume that trackers always do what's in their best interest. Your claim that fingerprinting is both just a fallback and probably worse for the user thus does not add up to me. Wouldn't they always use fingerprinting if that is more powerful? > Chrome is working on fingerprinting resistance and developing privacy preserving APIs that can replace third party cookies And what will their (business and thus vital) interest in doing this probably be? Probably not what's in my, the user's interest. But what's in their customers' interest - advertisers. > I work on ads at Google Well... (Thank you for the disclosure though.)
- lopis 7y ago
  Chrome doesn't need fingerprinting at all. If you are using that browser, you are already being tracked at all times. So by implementing fingerprinting resistance in the most popular browser, Google can thus hurt the competition while merrily continue their tracking business as usual.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    Yep, on the occasion I need to use chrome it's very upset by the fact I'm not logged into my Google account. I'm sure most users log in. So Google really, really knows who you are.
    - blackearl 7y ago
      The profile will connect to Chrome if you use any Google products with a login. changing this is opt-out
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        Is it possible to get Chrome to never nag me to create and log into a profile? When I open Chrome right now it asks me to authenticate or "Browse as Guest." Honestly it's kind of a rhetorical question because by having the nag screen the damage is already done to Google's reputation and it makes me feel really icky. Opting out of the nag screen just hides the grossness, and I would rather be reminded that using Chrome, and by extension all Google products, is just a bad idea.
  - jefftk 7y ago
    If you read the links I posted above, Chrome's plan is not "implement fingerprinting resistance while leaving third party cookies alone". It's "implement fingerprinting resistance, add new APIs that give privacy preserving ways of doing some of the things third party cookies are used for today, and remove third party cookies".
    - blackearl 7y ago
      The problem is Google tracking, not just third parties.
      - jefftk 7y ago
        Google ads don't have any special access in Chrome. They use regular cookies.
        OnlineGladiator 7y ago
        Why would Google even need to use cookies inside of its own browser which is linked to your personal identity? It's like saying Facebook uses regular cookies on its own website to figure out which pages you visit. I guess they could, but they already have your page view history so it's kind of pointless. If anything it sounds like a red herring argument.
        jefftk 7y ago
        Facebook does use cookies to handle identity on their website; that's how they know you're you. Google's ad networks do use cookies for ad targeting, even in Chrome.
        OnlineGladiator 7y ago
        I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying they have a litany of other tools (I've spoken at length with engineers at Facebook about how they do this) that really make those unnecessary. Obviously you know more about how Google does it, and admittedly ads is not my wheelhouse at all. But from what I understand: it's overkill. If you can point me towards a source that discusses the technical details of how Google tracks its users, I'd be interested in reading it.
- jefftk 7y ago
  > Wouldn't they always use fingerprinting if that is more powerful? Fingerprinting is less reliable and more difficult to use, but it's powerful enough that multiple companies will have a clear picture of your browsing history whether your browser blocks third party cookies or not. Fingerprinting is worse for users because you don't have control over it. If you open a private browsing window, close it, and open another one you're a different user from a cookie perspective but the same user from a fingerprinting perspective. > what will their (business and thus vital) interest in doing this probably be? My understanding from what Chrome has said publicly is that they're trying to get both (a) websites can make similar money from ads as they do now, keeping browsing free and (b) users have much more privacy than they do now, keeping third parties from being able to compile browsing histories for users. Users benefit from (a) because they value these sites and from (b) because they don't want their browsing histories leaked.
skinkestek 7y ago
> And if you prevent that, sites need to serve ads without any information about the user they're serving them to, and make about half as much money. So the reason why Facebook (that I rarely use and block using the Facebook container extension) serves me better ads than Google (that has known me since before I left school) is because Google is clueless? Seriously, for a long time I gave you the benefit of doubt but now you are just annoying. You make and then destroy products I love and can't even use the 23 282 192 million signals I have left behind over the years to give me ads that isn't directly insulting to me and my family! Seriously: I think even your ads were better before even though I never bought anything (didn't gave the money back then).
- zo1 7y ago
  At this point, they're not that great at either ads or search. They just have a huge amount of market share momentum behind them. They're then able to then use this to influence and mold the web in the direction that suits/grows their business. E.g. AMP, HTTPS, google-play lock-in, no-root access on devices, and a host of things that all synergize with each other to make it next to impossible to fight back as a consumer (even a skilled/informed one). Regarding them not being that great at search. It's non-trivial to see how blog-spam and fake generated websites are pummeling google's results. We've all encountered it, and have learned to kinda skim/ignore it to get to what we really want, but it's there, and it's dragging us all down. Not only that, but here we are more than 2 decades since they started, and being one of the largest data companies in the world with untold amounts of potential training data, and they can barely do basic search inference. They practically guess the most likely "thing" you are actually searching for and don't bother to go further. Checking whether the content of the site speaks to the "thing" or "noun" that you want instead of just having it as text inside of it? Forget it. Maybe if I append certain things it means I want the thing I'm searching for to be somehow related to this additional term? Call me crazy, but I would have imagined that at this point we would be living in an actual digital super age instead of what we have now. I am no longer going to say that we have "all of humanity's combined knowledge" at the tips of our fingers. We simply don't. We have basic facts and a whole host of brain-vomit content that I have to read/watch in order to extract the information I need, without even being able to tell how authoritative it is.
oneeyedpigeon 7y ago
A site could make a lot more money by selling its users' passwords to the highest bidder — that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to deny them that income. Without sharing personal data, ads can still be relevant to the scope of the site itself (less so for incredibly 'broad' sites such as facebook, of course, but they get compensated by having a much larger audience). A site can also gather whatever personal data it wants, and serve its own ads.
- jefftk 7y ago
  Chrome's Privacy Sandbox proposal [1] is about (a) having interest-based ads without (b) letting third parties track users across sites. Have a look at it, especially FLoC [2] and PIGIN [3]. [1] https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-sandbox https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-sandb... [2] https://github.com/jkarlin/floc https://github.com/jkarlin/floc [3] https://github.com/michaelkleber/pigin https://github.com/michaelkleber/pigin

by jefftk 7y ago

mherrmann 7y ago

I would assume that trackers always do what's in their best interest. Your claim that fingerprinting is both just a fallback and probably worse for the user thus does not add up to me. Wouldn't they always use fingerprinting if that is more powerful? > Chrome is working on fingerprinting resistance and developing privacy preserving APIs that can replace third party cookies And what will their (business and thus vital) interest in doing this probably be? Probably not what's in my, the user's interest. But what's in their customers' interest - advertisers. > I work on ads at Google Well... (Thank you for the disclosure though.)

lopis 7y ago
Chrome doesn't need fingerprinting at all. If you are using that browser, you are already being tracked at all times. So by implementing fingerprinting resistance in the most popular browser, Google can thus hurt the competition while merrily continue their tracking business as usual.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  Yep, on the occasion I need to use chrome it's very upset by the fact I'm not logged into my Google account. I'm sure most users log in. So Google really, really knows who you are.
  - blackearl 7y ago
    The profile will connect to Chrome if you use any Google products with a login. changing this is opt-out
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      Is it possible to get Chrome to never nag me to create and log into a profile? When I open Chrome right now it asks me to authenticate or "Browse as Guest." Honestly it's kind of a rhetorical question because by having the nag screen the damage is already done to Google's reputation and it makes me feel really icky. Opting out of the nag screen just hides the grossness, and I would rather be reminded that using Chrome, and by extension all Google products, is just a bad idea.
- jefftk 7y ago
  If you read the links I posted above, Chrome's plan is not "implement fingerprinting resistance while leaving third party cookies alone". It's "implement fingerprinting resistance, add new APIs that give privacy preserving ways of doing some of the things third party cookies are used for today, and remove third party cookies".
  - blackearl 7y ago
    The problem is Google tracking, not just third parties.
    - jefftk 7y ago
      Google ads don't have any special access in Chrome. They use regular cookies.
      - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
        Why would Google even need to use cookies inside of its own browser which is linked to your personal identity? It's like saying Facebook uses regular cookies on its own website to figure out which pages you visit. I guess they could, but they already have your page view history so it's kind of pointless. If anything it sounds like a red herring argument.
        jefftk 7y ago
        Facebook does use cookies to handle identity on their website; that's how they know you're you. Google's ad networks do use cookies for ad targeting, even in Chrome.
        OnlineGladiator 7y ago
        I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying they have a litany of other tools (I've spoken at length with engineers at Facebook about how they do this) that really make those unnecessary. Obviously you know more about how Google does it, and admittedly ads is not my wheelhouse at all. But from what I understand: it's overkill. If you can point me towards a source that discusses the technical details of how Google tracks its users, I'd be interested in reading it.
jefftk 7y ago
> Wouldn't they always use fingerprinting if that is more powerful? Fingerprinting is less reliable and more difficult to use, but it's powerful enough that multiple companies will have a clear picture of your browsing history whether your browser blocks third party cookies or not. Fingerprinting is worse for users because you don't have control over it. If you open a private browsing window, close it, and open another one you're a different user from a cookie perspective but the same user from a fingerprinting perspective. > what will their (business and thus vital) interest in doing this probably be? My understanding from what Chrome has said publicly is that they're trying to get both (a) websites can make similar money from ads as they do now, keeping browsing free and (b) users have much more privacy than they do now, keeping third parties from being able to compile browsing histories for users. Users benefit from (a) because they value these sites and from (b) because they don't want their browsing histories leaked.

skinkestek 7y ago

> And if you prevent that, sites need to serve ads without any information about the user they're serving them to, and make about half as much money. So the reason why Facebook (that I rarely use and block using the Facebook container extension) serves me better ads than Google (that has known me since before I left school) is because Google is clueless? Seriously, for a long time I gave you the benefit of doubt but now you are just annoying. You make and then destroy products I love and can't even use the 23 282 192 million signals I have left behind over the years to give me ads that isn't directly insulting to me and my family! Seriously: I think even your ads were better before even though I never bought anything (didn't gave the money back then).

zo1 7y ago
At this point, they're not that great at either ads or search. They just have a huge amount of market share momentum behind them. They're then able to then use this to influence and mold the web in the direction that suits/grows their business. E.g. AMP, HTTPS, google-play lock-in, no-root access on devices, and a host of things that all synergize with each other to make it next to impossible to fight back as a consumer (even a skilled/informed one). Regarding them not being that great at search. It's non-trivial to see how blog-spam and fake generated websites are pummeling google's results. We've all encountered it, and have learned to kinda skim/ignore it to get to what we really want, but it's there, and it's dragging us all down. Not only that, but here we are more than 2 decades since they started, and being one of the largest data companies in the world with untold amounts of potential training data, and they can barely do basic search inference. They practically guess the most likely "thing" you are actually searching for and don't bother to go further. Checking whether the content of the site speaks to the "thing" or "noun" that you want instead of just having it as text inside of it? Forget it. Maybe if I append certain things it means I want the thing I'm searching for to be somehow related to this additional term? Call me crazy, but I would have imagined that at this point we would be living in an actual digital super age instead of what we have now. I am no longer going to say that we have "all of humanity's combined knowledge" at the tips of our fingers. We simply don't. We have basic facts and a whole host of brain-vomit content that I have to read/watch in order to extract the information I need, without even being able to tell how authoritative it is.

oneeyedpigeon 7y ago

A site could make a lot more money by selling its users' passwords to the highest bidder — that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to deny them that income. Without sharing personal data, ads can still be relevant to the scope of the site itself (less so for incredibly 'broad' sites such as facebook, of course, but they get compensated by having a much larger audience). A site can also gather whatever personal data it wants, and serve its own ads.

jefftk 7y ago
Chrome's Privacy Sandbox proposal [1] is about (a) having interest-based ads without (b) letting third parties track users across sites. Have a look at it, especially FLoC [2] and PIGIN [3]. [1] https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-sandbox https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-sandb... [2] https://github.com/jkarlin/floc https://github.com/jkarlin/floc [3] https://github.com/michaelkleber/pigin https://github.com/michaelkleber/pigin