10 ms·

I hope no one is saying Privacy Sandbox is worse than third party cookies, or is trusting this article to form an opinion about it. Web advertising was a $319 b

by madrox 6y ago

I hope no one is saying Privacy Sandbox is worse than third party cookies, or is trusting this article to form an opinion about it. Web advertising was a $319 billion dollar industry in 2019. Does anyone wonder who may be lobbying their government to scrutinize Google and offer themselves for interviews for articles like this? Does anyone think the result of beating up Project Sandbox will be more radical privacy protection? No, I don't think this article has anything really to do with a better privacy outcome and everything to do with watering down Google's stance to something more status quo for the advertising industry. There are no actual critiques of Privacy Sandbox's APIs here. There's no mention of what critics stand to lose if Privacy Sandbox becomes the standard. There's merely hand wringing of "but do you trust Google?" Everyone who's made themselves available for quoting in this article is a web advertising professional, including the ones who come off as not[1][2]. None of them care about you. [1] James Rosewell is cited as director of "Marketers for an Open Web." He's also the CEO of a company that specializes in device detection. His LinkedIn headline reads "THE Fastest and Most Accurate Device Detection = more profitable websites" [2] Alan Chapell is sarcastic about Google attempting to do this openly through the w3c. He's cited as running a privacy law firm. Their web site says they represent tech companies navigating privacy issues. They aren't actual privacy advocates. https://chapellassociates.com/ https://chapellassociates.com/

dleslie 6y ago
Ok, I'll bite. I don't trust Google, and let's assume that they will always be a malicious adversary. Given that, why should I not be skeptical of their Privacy Sandbox initiative?
- madrox 6y ago
  This is basically an ad hominem argument. There is no room to discuss Sandbox on its merits with this stance. Yet we're debating this on an article whose every Sandbox criticism comes from other industry professionals who are just as worthy of being considered a malicious adversary. I make no statement that Project Sandbox should not be scrutinized -- merely that it's better than third party cookies -- and I don't believe increased antitrust scrutiny of Google will lead to better user privacy.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dleslie 6y ago
    If the API cannot stand on its own merits without trusting Google then it is subject to concerns about Google's trustworthiness. 3rd party cookies should be replaced with _nothing_, not this "privacy" API.
  - patcon 6y ago
    > This is basically an ad hominem argument. There is no room to discuss Sandbox on its merits with this stance. I respectfully disagree and defend the position you're replying to. I take issue with your provocation because I fear that asserting too much focus on a still-frame snapshot without looking at the full motion, that seems misguided. Politics constitute the motion around any spec snapshot. Focussing only on the technical merit of the proposal without also prioritizing the living, moving context around it, that's advocating a sort of blindness imho
    - kissickas 6y ago
      You're ignoring the living, moving context that is the adtech industry. It's one with a much higher ratio of middlemen:customers than needed, representatives of whom appear in this article.
      - patcon 6y ago
        I think I agree with you. I wholly support clamping down on adtech btw. I just don't support the "this article doesn't talk about the tech merit" angle of critique, as if that's so obviously a starting (or priority) point of departure.
      - dleslie 6y ago
        And, worth noting, the set of adtech industry persons includes all employees and contractors of Google. Google simple wouldn't exist if it weren't for adtech, and all cheques written by Google are dependent on adtech. It's the largest, most invasive and pervasive privacy intrusion in history, and its beneficiaries includes many HN regulars.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  No one is saying you shouldn't be sceptical. What OP is saying is only that you should not form an opinion on the subject based off of what some pro-third-party-cookies advertising-people are saying. He is pointing out that this is clearly an attack from someone with a lot to loose, not saying "trust google".
  - dleslie 6y ago
    They aren't wrong when they point out that it gives a massive information advantage to Google; but the pro-privacy solution is neither 3rd party cookies nor the "privacy" API. Both provide a means by which to uniquely identify and track the behaviour of a person. Besides, it's not wrong to listen to the losers; you might learn about some unfair competition.
colordrops 6y ago
Yes, google is restricting the tech in a way that superficially helps consumers. But in the way that wall street is selectively deregulated to their advantage and everyone else's disadvantage, google is selectively closing data loopholes to their advantage. This may have positive short-term privacy effects, but long term will hurt it with a single giant company as the arbiter of all data.
ogre_codes 6y ago
> I hope no one is saying Privacy Sandbox is worse than third party cookies Sort of like saying: "I hope no one is saying having a tracker in your car is worse than having a guy following you around." Sure, it's better. But it's not good either.
- madrox 6y ago
  Of course it isn't good. This is HN, and we want the web advertising industry to go away. However, that's not going to be the outcome. Antitrust scrutiny in this case means making it more fair to third party advertisers...the people who will be hit most by third party cookie disabling. As much as we want to hate on Google, articles like this won't make them move toward more privacy.
  - CyberRabbi 6y ago
    I don’t want the web advertising industry to go away. It’s benign. If you don’t want advertisers to track you you have the option to default browse without cookies. Even better, default browse without cookies and JavaScript. Yes, I do this. If you understand how cookies work then this is a perfectly viable option for you. If you don’t, you likely don’t care about advertisers tracking you.
    - Cederfjard 6y ago
      I disagree with your last statement. People may care about being tracked even though they don’t understand the mechanism, or even that it’s happening.
      - CyberRabbi 6y ago
        Well I just think that if you aren’t aware you are being tracked, you probably don’t really care too much. People who care they are being tracked will take the time to learn how stop being tracked. That’s why I learned about cookies etc. I think this is probably a way for google to assert further control over the advertising industry, using the guise of improving user privacy. Like I said, most users don’t really care because if they did they would just disable cookies, so I think they are solving a problem no one is actually having and that seems suspicious.
ellyagg 6y ago
IMO, Gogole having a monopoly on tracking me is clearly worse then the ability to track me being shared – and I can significantly hinder 3rd party tracking! I'm far more afraid of Google strengthening its monopoly, on general principle.
ROARosen 6y ago
> I hope no one is saying Privacy Sandbox is worse than third party cookies It doesn't need to be worse for it to be unacceptable to privacy-concerned folks which don't trust Google. It is just about the same to them since an untrustable entity like Google is stewarding it. Which BTW makes it worse since the solution is basically putting trust in Google which just brings on more and undefined privacy issues.
- jefftk 6y ago
  The argument in the linked post is not that Privacy Sandbox is "unacceptable to privacy-concerned folks which don't trust Google" but "unacceptable to ad tech companies who want to be able to continue to use third-party cookies". > the solution is basically putting trust in Google None of the privacy sandbox proposals require trusting Google: https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-sandbox https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-sandb... (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
  - ROARosen 6y ago
    Fair enough, but by trust I meant trust in Google's stewardship of the initiative, not trust in the sense of them actually handling data. That is what -justly or not- concerns some of my friends.
underwater 6y ago
Removing third party cookies benefits the end users as a side effect. But you could argue that advertisers are people too, and that Google are using their monopoly to reduce competition and drive up prices for a segment of the population. Is there a rule that says if antitrust benefits one segment of people and hurts another the it's OK?
theshrike79 6y ago
> Web advertising was a $319 billion dollar industry in 2019. Does anyone wonder who may be lobbying their government to scrutinize Google and offer themselves for interviews for articles like this? You do know that Google is a web advertising company first? If they're proposing something, you can be damned sure that it was vetted first by people who know how to use it for ad tracking - because that's literally their bread and butter. Chrome will never: ban 3rd party cookies, tell which sites track you etc. They're not going to shoot themselves in the foot without a plan. There is no situation where Google will actually care about privacy, since their whole business model exists on the fact that they know everything about their users so they can target ads better.
- lopis 6y ago
  > Chrome will never: ban 3rd party cookies It will ban 3rd party cookies the moment Google decides it's time to kill off most of their competition. They have Chrome installed on most people's computers and smartphones so they hold tremendous power to dictate the direction of the web, while they keep tracking people through the browser, with a user login, basically cookie-less.
  - kergonath 6y ago
    I thought that was addressed with “They're not going to shoot themselves in the foot without a plan”. I’d bet they would ban 3rd party cookies the microsecond after they made sure they had a proved workaround.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Google can probably track you without cookies if you use Google Chrome. If they remove alternative methods of tracking they end up eliminating competitors.
  - Yizahi 6y ago
    Which would be great. Minus one surveillance corporation in the world - the better for humans in general. Then we either split and regulate Google by government if we are lucky, or it stays as a surveillance monopoly, but there will be less surveillance anyway.
contravariant 6y ago
Well at the moment I can block 3rd party cookies, can I block the Privacy Sandbox?
otabdeveloper4 6y ago
You're nuts if you think that giving Google (the largest web advertiser in the world) a proprietary monopoly on user tracking instead of having an open standard is somehow better.
tomjen3 6y ago
It would be possible to write an extension to firefox or chrome that switched peoples third-party cookies around, polluting, potentially permanently, the targeting data. It does not seem possible to do this with whatever google is cooking up.
Dirlewanger 6y ago
What Google department do you work for?
kall 6y ago
I think no one (in the article) is saying it‘s worse for privacy, or if they do that‘s an easy lie. They are saying it‘s worse for competition. A competitive online advertising market may well be in opposition to the highest level of user privacy. The EU has both antitrust and privacy concerns with big tech, but it‘s different fronts.
stiray 6y ago
Lets do things in some proper order: Dismantle google to smaller companies and separate all the parts (from android, search engine to google earth) away from advertising part. Prevent them from sharing data. Dismantle facebook. Separate it from advertising part. THEN we can praise Privacy Sandbox. The alternative is to NOT use chrome. Switch to Firefox. Praising "privacy sandbox" where browser doesnt allow you to logout from your google account doesnt solve anything. I do care if there is 300 inefficient tracking companies in exchange for one that is extremely efficient and can push other 3rd party sites to use it. What do you think will happen? First, other advertisers will be killed, google would offer its identifier to the sites and suddenly you wont be able to surf anywhere without google account and chrome. Nope, thank you very much for such "privacy sandbox".
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ajarmst 6y ago
I think the argument that Google is trying to make is that Privacy Sandbox is better because it's our trusted friend Google that will control this information, not all these other organizations who don't have your best interests at heart. Which is hilarious, and not even original: governments and law enforcement have been making the same argument around privacy issues (to the sound of millions of rolling eyeballs) for decades.
davidfstr 6y ago
I actually like the idea of Privacy Sandbox. It appears to enable sites which depend on ad revenue to continue to exist while seeking to eliminate the usual problem with current adtech: third party tracking. I wrote up a more nuanced version of this opinion here: * Privacy Sandbox: Google's answer to privacy-conscious advertising -- https://dafoster.net/articles/2021/02/04/privacy-sandbox-googles-answer-to-privacy-conscious-advertising/ https://dafoster.net/articles/2021/02/04/privacy-sandbox-goo...
- jefftk 6y ago
  I like your post. It does conflate Privacy Sandbox with one of the specific proposals, however: "there still exists an algorithm which is fed a user’s browsing history and that algorithm is used to put the user into an advertising cohort. However the interesting change with Privacy Sandbox is that this algorithm is run locally within the user’s browser, and never actually needs to transmit the user’s browsing history over the internet. Instead only a code for the identified cohort is transmitted, and a remote ad server can use that cohort directly." is describing https://github.com/WICG/floc https://github.com/WICG/floc Another component of Privacy Sandbox is Turtledove (https://github.com/WICG/turtledove https://github.com/WICG/turtledove), where advertisers can tag a user as belonging to a "interest group" and then later on can target ads against that interest group. Which groups a user is in is maintained entirely by the browser, and never sent to the server, And any ads that are rendered based on interest group targeting have to execute in a special "fenced frame" which prevents them from leaking information to the surrounding page or to the advertiser in a non-aggregated way. (Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, so I'm following these proposals. Speaking only for myself)
  - davidfstr 6y ago
    > I like your post. It does conflate Privacy Sandbox with one of the specific proposals, however: [...] https://github.com/WICG/floc https://github.com/WICG/floc Thanks for the clarification Jeff. > Another component of Privacy Sandbox is Turtledove (https://github.com/WICG/turtledove https://github.com/WICG/turtledove), [...]. Which groups a user is in is maintained entirely by the browser, and never sent to the server Interesting. I'll plan to read up on this tonight and amend my post from what I learn.

by madrox 6y ago

dleslie 6y ago

Ok, I'll bite. I don't trust Google, and let's assume that they will always be a malicious adversary. Given that, why should I not be skeptical of their Privacy Sandbox initiative?

madrox 6y ago
This is basically an ad hominem argument. There is no room to discuss Sandbox on its merits with this stance. Yet we're debating this on an article whose every Sandbox criticism comes from other industry professionals who are just as worthy of being considered a malicious adversary. I make no statement that Project Sandbox should not be scrutinized -- merely that it's better than third party cookies -- and I don't believe increased antitrust scrutiny of Google will lead to better user privacy.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dleslie 6y ago
  If the API cannot stand on its own merits without trusting Google then it is subject to concerns about Google's trustworthiness. 3rd party cookies should be replaced with _nothing_, not this "privacy" API.
- patcon 6y ago
  > This is basically an ad hominem argument. There is no room to discuss Sandbox on its merits with this stance. I respectfully disagree and defend the position you're replying to. I take issue with your provocation because I fear that asserting too much focus on a still-frame snapshot without looking at the full motion, that seems misguided. Politics constitute the motion around any spec snapshot. Focussing only on the technical merit of the proposal without also prioritizing the living, moving context around it, that's advocating a sort of blindness imho
  - kissickas 6y ago
    You're ignoring the living, moving context that is the adtech industry. It's one with a much higher ratio of middlemen:customers than needed, representatives of whom appear in this article.
    - patcon 6y ago
      I think I agree with you. I wholly support clamping down on adtech btw. I just don't support the "this article doesn't talk about the tech merit" angle of critique, as if that's so obviously a starting (or priority) point of departure.
    - dleslie 6y ago
      And, worth noting, the set of adtech industry persons includes all employees and contractors of Google. Google simple wouldn't exist if it weren't for adtech, and all cheques written by Google are dependent on adtech. It's the largest, most invasive and pervasive privacy intrusion in history, and its beneficiaries includes many HN regulars.
Daho0n 6y ago
No one is saying you shouldn't be sceptical. What OP is saying is only that you should not form an opinion on the subject based off of what some pro-third-party-cookies advertising-people are saying. He is pointing out that this is clearly an attack from someone with a lot to loose, not saying "trust google".
- dleslie 6y ago
  They aren't wrong when they point out that it gives a massive information advantage to Google; but the pro-privacy solution is neither 3rd party cookies nor the "privacy" API. Both provide a means by which to uniquely identify and track the behaviour of a person. Besides, it's not wrong to listen to the losers; you might learn about some unfair competition.

colordrops 6y ago

Yes, google is restricting the tech in a way that superficially helps consumers. But in the way that wall street is selectively deregulated to their advantage and everyone else's disadvantage, google is selectively closing data loopholes to their advantage. This may have positive short-term privacy effects, but long term will hurt it with a single giant company as the arbiter of all data.

ogre_codes 6y ago

> I hope no one is saying Privacy Sandbox is worse than third party cookies Sort of like saying: "I hope no one is saying having a tracker in your car is worse than having a guy following you around." Sure, it's better. But it's not good either.

madrox 6y ago
Of course it isn't good. This is HN, and we want the web advertising industry to go away. However, that's not going to be the outcome. Antitrust scrutiny in this case means making it more fair to third party advertisers...the people who will be hit most by third party cookie disabling. As much as we want to hate on Google, articles like this won't make them move toward more privacy.
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  I don’t want the web advertising industry to go away. It’s benign. If you don’t want advertisers to track you you have the option to default browse without cookies. Even better, default browse without cookies and JavaScript. Yes, I do this. If you understand how cookies work then this is a perfectly viable option for you. If you don’t, you likely don’t care about advertisers tracking you.
  - Cederfjard 6y ago
    I disagree with your last statement. People may care about being tracked even though they don’t understand the mechanism, or even that it’s happening.
    - CyberRabbi 6y ago
      Well I just think that if you aren’t aware you are being tracked, you probably don’t really care too much. People who care they are being tracked will take the time to learn how stop being tracked. That’s why I learned about cookies etc. I think this is probably a way for google to assert further control over the advertising industry, using the guise of improving user privacy. Like I said, most users don’t really care because if they did they would just disable cookies, so I think they are solving a problem no one is actually having and that seems suspicious.

ellyagg 6y ago

IMO, Gogole having a monopoly on tracking me is clearly worse then the ability to track me being shared – and I can significantly hinder 3rd party tracking! I'm far more afraid of Google strengthening its monopoly, on general principle.

ROARosen 6y ago

> I hope no one is saying Privacy Sandbox is worse than third party cookies It doesn't need to be worse for it to be unacceptable to privacy-concerned folks which don't trust Google. It is just about the same to them since an untrustable entity like Google is stewarding it. Which BTW makes it worse since the solution is basically putting trust in Google which just brings on more and undefined privacy issues.

jefftk 6y ago
The argument in the linked post is not that Privacy Sandbox is "unacceptable to privacy-concerned folks which don't trust Google" but "unacceptable to ad tech companies who want to be able to continue to use third-party cookies". > the solution is basically putting trust in Google None of the privacy sandbox proposals require trusting Google: https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-sandbox https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-sandb... (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
- ROARosen 6y ago
  Fair enough, but by trust I meant trust in Google's stewardship of the initiative, not trust in the sense of them actually handling data. That is what -justly or not- concerns some of my friends.

underwater 6y ago

Removing third party cookies benefits the end users as a side effect. But you could argue that advertisers are people too, and that Google are using their monopoly to reduce competition and drive up prices for a segment of the population. Is there a rule that says if antitrust benefits one segment of people and hurts another the it's OK?

theshrike79 6y ago

> Web advertising was a $319 billion dollar industry in 2019. Does anyone wonder who may be lobbying their government to scrutinize Google and offer themselves for interviews for articles like this? You do know that Google is a web advertising company first? If they're proposing something, you can be damned sure that it was vetted first by people who know how to use it for ad tracking - because that's literally their bread and butter. Chrome will never: ban 3rd party cookies, tell which sites track you etc. They're not going to shoot themselves in the foot without a plan. There is no situation where Google will actually care about privacy, since their whole business model exists on the fact that they know everything about their users so they can target ads better.

lopis 6y ago
> Chrome will never: ban 3rd party cookies It will ban 3rd party cookies the moment Google decides it's time to kill off most of their competition. They have Chrome installed on most people's computers and smartphones so they hold tremendous power to dictate the direction of the web, while they keep tracking people through the browser, with a user login, basically cookie-less.
- kergonath 6y ago
  I thought that was addressed with “They're not going to shoot themselves in the foot without a plan”. I’d bet they would ban 3rd party cookies the microsecond after they made sure they had a proved workaround.
imtringued 6y ago
Google can probably track you without cookies if you use Google Chrome. If they remove alternative methods of tracking they end up eliminating competitors.
- Yizahi 6y ago
  Which would be great. Minus one surveillance corporation in the world - the better for humans in general. Then we either split and regulate Google by government if we are lucky, or it stays as a surveillance monopoly, but there will be less surveillance anyway.

contravariant 6y ago

Well at the moment I can block 3rd party cookies, can I block the Privacy Sandbox?

otabdeveloper4 6y ago

You're nuts if you think that giving Google (the largest web advertiser in the world) a proprietary monopoly on user tracking instead of having an open standard is somehow better.

tomjen3 6y ago

It would be possible to write an extension to firefox or chrome that switched peoples third-party cookies around, polluting, potentially permanently, the targeting data. It does not seem possible to do this with whatever google is cooking up.

Dirlewanger 6y ago

What Google department do you work for?

kall 6y ago

I think no one (in the article) is saying it‘s worse for privacy, or if they do that‘s an easy lie. They are saying it‘s worse for competition. A competitive online advertising market may well be in opposition to the highest level of user privacy. The EU has both antitrust and privacy concerns with big tech, but it‘s different fronts.

stiray 6y ago

Lets do things in some proper order: Dismantle google to smaller companies and separate all the parts (from android, search engine to google earth) away from advertising part. Prevent them from sharing data. Dismantle facebook. Separate it from advertising part. THEN we can praise Privacy Sandbox. The alternative is to NOT use chrome. Switch to Firefox. Praising "privacy sandbox" where browser doesnt allow you to logout from your google account doesnt solve anything. I do care if there is 300 inefficient tracking companies in exchange for one that is extremely efficient and can push other 3rd party sites to use it. What do you think will happen? First, other advertisers will be killed, google would offer its identifier to the sites and suddenly you wont be able to surf anywhere without google account and chrome. Nope, thank you very much for such "privacy sandbox".

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ajarmst 6y ago

I think the argument that Google is trying to make is that Privacy Sandbox is better because it's our trusted friend Google that will control this information, not all these other organizations who don't have your best interests at heart. Which is hilarious, and not even original: governments and law enforcement have been making the same argument around privacy issues (to the sound of millions of rolling eyeballs) for decades.

davidfstr 6y ago

I actually like the idea of Privacy Sandbox. It appears to enable sites which depend on ad revenue to continue to exist while seeking to eliminate the usual problem with current adtech: third party tracking. I wrote up a more nuanced version of this opinion here: * Privacy Sandbox: Google's answer to privacy-conscious advertising -- https://dafoster.net/articles/2021/02/04/privacy-sandbox-googles-answer-to-privacy-conscious-advertising/ https://dafoster.net/articles/2021/02/04/privacy-sandbox-goo...

jefftk 6y ago
I like your post. It does conflate Privacy Sandbox with one of the specific proposals, however: "there still exists an algorithm which is fed a user’s browsing history and that algorithm is used to put the user into an advertising cohort. However the interesting change with Privacy Sandbox is that this algorithm is run locally within the user’s browser, and never actually needs to transmit the user’s browsing history over the internet. Instead only a code for the identified cohort is transmitted, and a remote ad server can use that cohort directly." is describing https://github.com/WICG/floc https://github.com/WICG/floc Another component of Privacy Sandbox is Turtledove (https://github.com/WICG/turtledove https://github.com/WICG/turtledove), where advertisers can tag a user as belonging to a "interest group" and then later on can target ads against that interest group. Which groups a user is in is maintained entirely by the browser, and never sent to the server, And any ads that are rendered based on interest group targeting have to execute in a special "fenced frame" which prevents them from leaking information to the surrounding page or to the advertiser in a non-aggregated way. (Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, so I'm following these proposals. Speaking only for myself)
- davidfstr 6y ago
  > I like your post. It does conflate Privacy Sandbox with one of the specific proposals, however: [...] https://github.com/WICG/floc https://github.com/WICG/floc Thanks for the clarification Jeff. > Another component of Privacy Sandbox is Turtledove (https://github.com/WICG/turtledove https://github.com/WICG/turtledove), [...]. Which groups a user is in is maintained entirely by the browser, and never sent to the server Interesting. I'll plan to read up on this tonight and amend my post from what I learn.