4 ms·
They get a lot of flack here but kudos to Google for informing Privacy Badger about this.
by electriclove 6y ago
They get a lot of flack here but kudos to Google for informing Privacy Badger about this.
- ocdtrekkie 6y agoGoogle's original report on Safari's ITP was part of a major FUD campaign about privacy measures. Google went so far as to suggest because fingerprinting was possible, we should just allow third party cookies. Arguably, carrying this forward in limiting the effectiveness of Privacy Badger to block tracking domains is a further extension of that behavior. Google has finally been pushed to accept that third party cookies are going away, but are now advocating for a "privacy budget" system that essentially gives them a certain amount of allowance to violate your privacy. They are still FUD-ing about the drastically more correct solution: To just protect your privacy outright.
- sthnblllII 6y ago>because fingerprinting was possible, we should just allow third party cookies Nothing is either/or. Increasing the cost and difficulty of tracking does increase privacy. At the same time, there is some truth to the argument that Google is not losing the arms race between its trackers and the blockers anytime soon. Fundamentally, as long as web pages have this much control over your computer, they will be able to track you. The web is broken and needs to be paired down and reworked so that privacy is part of the protocol.