5 ms·

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 thu

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.

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.