4 ms·

This would make sense if they needed to collect that information organically, but there's already requests made to Google as soon as Chrome launches. So, no, it

by 0xy 6y ago

This would make sense if they needed to collect that information organically, but there's already requests made to Google as soon as Chrome launches. So, no, it's not required for analytics. [1] That leaves... ad tracking. Chrome will send a tracking ID to DoubleClick with every request to that host. Doesn't this prove that Chrome is a trojan horse used for ads and tracking purposes? [1] https://twitter.com/jonathansampson/status/1165493206441779200 https://twitter.com/jonathansampson/status/11654932064417792...

joshuamorton 6y ago
> This would make sense if they needed to collect that information organically, but there's already requests made to Google as soon as Chrome launches. So, no, it's not required for analytics. Wait what? You don't think there's analytics that can be done about the browser itself? Let's say chrome ships a new experiment, that when enabled on certain devices uses 100% of the CPU until chrome is closed. Analytics sent on browser startup would provide insight into that. If you're asking why they need both: having analytics in the context of a given page is also useful. If you can see that different experiments in chrome cause different performance impacts when loading the same page, that's also useful data that you can't get from analytics sent on startup. Nor could you centralize the logging of that information, as it would essentially be sending your browser history to Google all in one request, which is even easier to track. > Doesn't this prove that Chrome is a trojan horse used for ads and tracking purposes? Bluntly, no.
- 0xy 6y ago
  Let me put it another way. Do you think the average user knows of or would approve of Google Chrome itself sending information to an advertising network that could be used to track their behaviors and identity? Do you think this "feature" is adequately disclosed to customers downloading Google Chrome, that it includes a DoubleClick tracking backdoor that no other ad network or website receives.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    Given that > that it includes a DoubleClick tracking backdoor that no other ad network or website receives. is false, yes, I think the disclosures are reasonable. Your standard of disclosure is that companies need to disclose things that they aren't actually doing. That's ridiculous.
    - 0xy 6y ago
      How do you know they're not using it for tracking, beyond an ambiguous PR statement that actually doesn't even say they aren't using it for tracking? What makes you sure of that? There are literally billions of dollars on the line. Does Safari or Firefox implement a similar tracking header? If it's so needed for experiments, why is Chrome literally the only browser sending this data to their advertising network (or any site)? If Google were using it for tracking purposes, they'd never confirm that unless forced to. Hence the ambiguous PR statement.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        > Hence the ambiguous PR statement. There's nothing ambiguous about "is not used to identify or track individual users.". Any form of personalized ad tracking would require tracking individual users, by definition. So there's your answer. Your attempts to create weaseling where there isn't any, so that you can continue to exclaim about the potentials for tracking don't actually change the ambiguity of the statement. > How do you know they're not using it for tracking Well I mentioned upthread I work at Google, right? Let me ask a question: Google has historically been notorious for not being able to keep things secret, especially controversial things. How is it that Google is managing to keep this major component of tracking, that has to touch multiple major products and involve various teams a secret?
        0xy 6y ago
        If Google can't keep things quiet, where can I find a rough list of factors DoubleClick uses in order to track users? Has any of those factors leaked in the past? Would anyone on the ad team at Google jeopardize their $350k per year to leak unethical behavior in that division? There's plenty ambiguous about that statement. Firstly, it doesn't cover past or future. Room for weaseling there. Secondly, it specifically says "track individual users", rather than include devices or just say "tracking" generally. Could they be tracking multiple users with the data point of "rarely updates browser"? According to that statement, they didn't rule it out. That statement explicitly does not say they are not using that information to track devices or Chrome installs. In fact, it doesn't even say it isn't a factor in ad targeting algorithms. Given it was written by Google's highly skilled PR team, and not a developer, I'm inclined to believe they wrote this ambiguously for a reason. Google does not have a good track record with the truth or community goodwill (they stabbed Firefox in the back). It's an advertising company making billions of dollars specifically from the use of tracking data. You're asking me to trust that said advertising company isn't using a tracking ID for tracking purposes when said ID is sent directly to their advertising domains.

by 0xy 6y ago

joshuamorton 6y ago

> This would make sense if they needed to collect that information organically, but there's already requests made to Google as soon as Chrome launches. So, no, it's not required for analytics. Wait what? You don't think there's analytics that can be done about the browser itself? Let's say chrome ships a new experiment, that when enabled on certain devices uses 100% of the CPU until chrome is closed. Analytics sent on browser startup would provide insight into that. If you're asking why they need both: having analytics in the context of a given page is also useful. If you can see that different experiments in chrome cause different performance impacts when loading the same page, that's also useful data that you can't get from analytics sent on startup. Nor could you centralize the logging of that information, as it would essentially be sending your browser history to Google all in one request, which is even easier to track. > Doesn't this prove that Chrome is a trojan horse used for ads and tracking purposes? Bluntly, no.

0xy 6y ago
Let me put it another way. Do you think the average user knows of or would approve of Google Chrome itself sending information to an advertising network that could be used to track their behaviors and identity? Do you think this "feature" is adequately disclosed to customers downloading Google Chrome, that it includes a DoubleClick tracking backdoor that no other ad network or website receives.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Given that > that it includes a DoubleClick tracking backdoor that no other ad network or website receives. is false, yes, I think the disclosures are reasonable. Your standard of disclosure is that companies need to disclose things that they aren't actually doing. That's ridiculous.
  - 0xy 6y ago
    How do you know they're not using it for tracking, beyond an ambiguous PR statement that actually doesn't even say they aren't using it for tracking? What makes you sure of that? There are literally billions of dollars on the line. Does Safari or Firefox implement a similar tracking header? If it's so needed for experiments, why is Chrome literally the only browser sending this data to their advertising network (or any site)? If Google were using it for tracking purposes, they'd never confirm that unless forced to. Hence the ambiguous PR statement.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > Hence the ambiguous PR statement. There's nothing ambiguous about "is not used to identify or track individual users.". Any form of personalized ad tracking would require tracking individual users, by definition. So there's your answer. Your attempts to create weaseling where there isn't any, so that you can continue to exclaim about the potentials for tracking don't actually change the ambiguity of the statement. > How do you know they're not using it for tracking Well I mentioned upthread I work at Google, right? Let me ask a question: Google has historically been notorious for not being able to keep things secret, especially controversial things. How is it that Google is managing to keep this major component of tracking, that has to touch multiple major products and involve various teams a secret?
      - 0xy 6y ago
        If Google can't keep things quiet, where can I find a rough list of factors DoubleClick uses in order to track users? Has any of those factors leaked in the past? Would anyone on the ad team at Google jeopardize their $350k per year to leak unethical behavior in that division? There's plenty ambiguous about that statement. Firstly, it doesn't cover past or future. Room for weaseling there. Secondly, it specifically says "track individual users", rather than include devices or just say "tracking" generally. Could they be tracking multiple users with the data point of "rarely updates browser"? According to that statement, they didn't rule it out. That statement explicitly does not say they are not using that information to track devices or Chrome installs. In fact, it doesn't even say it isn't a factor in ad targeting algorithms. Given it was written by Google's highly skilled PR team, and not a developer, I'm inclined to believe they wrote this ambiguously for a reason. Google does not have a good track record with the truth or community goodwill (they stabbed Firefox in the back). It's an advertising company making billions of dollars specifically from the use of tracking data. You're asking me to trust that said advertising company isn't using a tracking ID for tracking purposes when said ID is sent directly to their advertising domains.