5 ms·

Without repeating the same arguments, it's possible that Google is using it for tracking purposes because their public statements were ambiguous. That aside tho

by 0xy 6y ago

Without repeating the same arguments, it's possible that Google is using it for tracking purposes because their public statements were ambiguous. That aside though, this behavior is never disclosed to users and is impossible to disable. Do you think the average user knows that Chrome is sending unique identifiers to DoubleClick? Of course not, it was never disclosed and they were never given the option to disable it.

joshuamorton 6y ago
Can you explain what is ambiguous about "This information helps us measure server-side metrics for large groups of installations; it is not used to identify or track individual users." > Do you think the average user knows that Chrome is sending unique identifiers to DoubleClick? What's your actual concern? What you've described here applies to nefarious data like the IP address.
- 0xy 6y ago
  Okay I presume you've never worked in the ad or tracking industry, because the data being sent to DoubleClick without notification is gold for tracking purposes. This can also be considered anti-competitive behavior. DoubleClick has access to orders of magnitude more tracking data than its competitors. IP Addresses cannot be used to differentiate devices. X-Client-Data can, easily. My concerns are: - Their statement is ambiguous, and does not rule out use for tracking or advertising purposes, nor does it rule out future use for individual user tracking. - This "feature" was added sneakily. No notification, there's no user disclosure. Nothing. That just screams suspicious, given the value of the data being sent. - It cannot be disabled. This is the key point. Why can't it be disabled? - DoubleClick is in the whitelist for no reason other than ad tracking purposes. The amount of websites who make calls to DoubleClick and not GTM or GA must be vanishingly small. So the argument that you want to collect the most data is disingenuous. 87%(!!!) of the top 100,000 websites globally make calls to GA. My concern is Google has sneakily added a feature that can be used for tracking purposes while refusing to disclose it to end users and making it impossible to disable.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > Okay I presume you've never worked in the ad or tracking industry Yes and no. I work on tooling very similar to the actual, intended, use of the x-client-data header (aggregate performance analysis). > because the data being sent to DoubleClick without notification is gold for tracking purposes What does it provide that other data that is accessible does not? > IP Addresses cannot be used to differentiate devices. Ah, I see, so in the case of multiple logged-out but non-incognito chrome users in the same household, x-client-data could be used to better target ads to specific devices in the household, instead of the household as a whole. That's the "gold" here? > - This "feature" was added sneakily. No notification, there's no user disclosure. Nothing. That just screams suspicious, given the value of the data being sent. Sure, sort of, in 2012[0]. Doubleclick was added a bit later, in 2014[1]. The reasoning, at the time, is provided in the linked bug[2]. Sure looks nefarious. So was this an 8+ year scheme? Now, there are (at least) two possible ways to look at this, either it's an almost decade long scheme, or alternatively no one on chrome had any intent of ever tracking individual users, and it wasn't even considered. The bug also provides some more insight, doubleclick and GA serve different types of data, and that might matter for measuring things about QUIC. > DoubleClick is in the whitelist for no reason other than ad tracking purposes. The amount of websites who make calls to DoubleClick and not GTM or GA must be vanishingly small. Literally the first website I picked, CNN.com, has doubleclick sources, but not GTM or GA (at least as far as I can tell). > and does not rule out use for tracking or advertising purposes I will once again ask for a scheme by which the header is both useful for tracking or advertising, and isn't used for tracking individual users. It seems like you're claiming that Google is attempting to split hairs and say that tracking individual devices is different from tracking individual users. I've explained before why something like x-client-data can actually be a useful privacy-preserving tool elsewhere[3] (since it allows you to join across a quasi-identifier instead of a PII-identifier). [0]: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/f89fdab13152123f737dc84f5910362fa6569f7f%5E%21/chrome/browser/renderer_host/chrome_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.cc https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/f89fdab... [1]: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/64d617ec7c502ea5ce5ec8f6f97580000541a854 https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/64d617e... [2]: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=379341 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=379341 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22244282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22244282

by 0xy 6y ago

joshuamorton 6y ago

Can you explain what is ambiguous about "This information helps us measure server-side metrics for large groups of installations; it is not used to identify or track individual users." > Do you think the average user knows that Chrome is sending unique identifiers to DoubleClick? What's your actual concern? What you've described here applies to nefarious data like the IP address.

0xy 6y ago
Okay I presume you've never worked in the ad or tracking industry, because the data being sent to DoubleClick without notification is gold for tracking purposes. This can also be considered anti-competitive behavior. DoubleClick has access to orders of magnitude more tracking data than its competitors. IP Addresses cannot be used to differentiate devices. X-Client-Data can, easily. My concerns are: - Their statement is ambiguous, and does not rule out use for tracking or advertising purposes, nor does it rule out future use for individual user tracking. - This "feature" was added sneakily. No notification, there's no user disclosure. Nothing. That just screams suspicious, given the value of the data being sent. - It cannot be disabled. This is the key point. Why can't it be disabled? - DoubleClick is in the whitelist for no reason other than ad tracking purposes. The amount of websites who make calls to DoubleClick and not GTM or GA must be vanishingly small. So the argument that you want to collect the most data is disingenuous. 87%(!!!) of the top 100,000 websites globally make calls to GA. My concern is Google has sneakily added a feature that can be used for tracking purposes while refusing to disclose it to end users and making it impossible to disable.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > Okay I presume you've never worked in the ad or tracking industry Yes and no. I work on tooling very similar to the actual, intended, use of the x-client-data header (aggregate performance analysis). > because the data being sent to DoubleClick without notification is gold for tracking purposes What does it provide that other data that is accessible does not? > IP Addresses cannot be used to differentiate devices. Ah, I see, so in the case of multiple logged-out but non-incognito chrome users in the same household, x-client-data could be used to better target ads to specific devices in the household, instead of the household as a whole. That's the "gold" here? > - This "feature" was added sneakily. No notification, there's no user disclosure. Nothing. That just screams suspicious, given the value of the data being sent. Sure, sort of, in 2012[0]. Doubleclick was added a bit later, in 2014[1]. The reasoning, at the time, is provided in the linked bug[2]. Sure looks nefarious. So was this an 8+ year scheme? Now, there are (at least) two possible ways to look at this, either it's an almost decade long scheme, or alternatively no one on chrome had any intent of ever tracking individual users, and it wasn't even considered. The bug also provides some more insight, doubleclick and GA serve different types of data, and that might matter for measuring things about QUIC. > DoubleClick is in the whitelist for no reason other than ad tracking purposes. The amount of websites who make calls to DoubleClick and not GTM or GA must be vanishingly small. Literally the first website I picked, CNN.com, has doubleclick sources, but not GTM or GA (at least as far as I can tell). > and does not rule out use for tracking or advertising purposes I will once again ask for a scheme by which the header is both useful for tracking or advertising, and isn't used for tracking individual users. It seems like you're claiming that Google is attempting to split hairs and say that tracking individual devices is different from tracking individual users. I've explained before why something like x-client-data can actually be a useful privacy-preserving tool elsewhere[3] (since it allows you to join across a quasi-identifier instead of a PII-identifier). [0]: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/f89fdab13152123f737dc84f5910362fa6569f7f%5E%21/chrome/browser/renderer_host/chrome_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.cc https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/f89fdab... [1]: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/64d617ec7c502ea5ce5ec8f6f97580000541a854 https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/64d617e... [2]: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=379341 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=379341 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22244282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22244282