12 ms·

> Re: forced Chrome logins. Don't need cookies if you own the browser! (https://twitter.com/fasterthanlime/status/1452094513741189122 https://twitter.com/faste

by aasasd 5y ago

> Re: forced Chrome logins. Don't need cookies if you own the browser! (https://twitter.com/fasterthanlime/status/1452094513741189122 https://twitter.com/fasterthanlime/status/145209451374118912...) The swindle with FLOC was pretty obviously tied in this, but people still went in circles discussing whether it's private or not, and downvoting those who said FLOC is a trap. Let's consult the plan, nothing is even secret about this: - Google disables third-party cookies, crippling competitors to its Analytics, and thus their data for ads. - Google throws them the FLOC bone to avoid being sued, dressing it up as a privacy measure. Meanwhile FLOC is controlled by Google's code in the browser. - Google itself continues to vacuum up users' stats for all sites through the browser, never needing the cookies or FLOC. So, if this is not a case of Google using its monopoly on web services (email and video) and the monopoly on the browser to prop up its monopoly on web ads, then I don't know what is. The baffling part, really, is: with Goog already being ahead of the rest of the planet by having surveillance in The Browser, why don't they chill the hell out and stop right there. It's almost like someone inside decided to set up a multibillion-dollar morality performance and demonstrate what happens when a company is being too greedy. Also, we probably need to remember that even if Goog is told off and has to dial its appetites back, it still sits on a database of surveillance data on people through the web, the browser, the services and Android. Which database, for example, is used by the US police for location->people requests, of which folks by definition only some are potential subjects of investigation (see e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/13/technology/google-sensorvault-location-tracking.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/13/technology/google-sensorv...).

sixothree 5y ago
> The swindle with FLOC was pretty obviously tied in this, but people still went in circles discussing whether it's private or not, and downvoting those who said FLOC is a trap. The brigading on HN in particular seems extremely obvious when it comes to Google related articles.
braveyellowtoad 5y ago
Woah, so if a user is logged into chrome, Google has permission / is able to track all web activity for that user?
- vasachi 5y ago
  Doesn't chrome have browsing history sync?
  - aasasd 5y ago
    Uh uh! While I'm obviously no fan of Google and Chrome, afaik the synced data is encrypted, or at least Goog says so. I.e. it's used just for syncing. Can't remember, though, if it's always encrypted, or just optionally encrypted.
    - milankragujevic 5y ago
      Optionally encrypted, if you provide your own sync passphrase.
- aasasd 5y ago
  Frankly, I'm not sure about the current state of things, seeing as it likely has changed several times in the past few years. However, a) I'm not sure why Goog would want to bother with browser accounts otherwise, and b) my use of Chrome ceased soonish after I had the following experience in the early 2010s: - set up a new empty site, listed absolutely nowhere, on quite dedicated hosting. - open it in Chrome. - a couple minutes later, observe Googlebot appearing in the visitor logs of the site. Lastly, if you go to the ‘My activity’ settings on Google, you can see: “Include Chrome history and activity from sites, apps, and devices that use Google services”, which I guess can still be dissected further. And I have some website visits from 2016 listed there: including Wikipedia, which doesn't seem to use Google Analytics currently (not sure about 2016)—though these could be visits through Google search. Also, text in the linked tweet directly says that Google tracks users on third-party sites through Chrome.
  - adriancr 5y ago
    This could also be via dns records if you published some they would get scanned
arthur_sav 5y ago
Personally, i don't think there's anything wrong with holding a monopoly as long as it stems from merit. However, we are proven time after time that power corrupts. Unless there's a regulatory body to watch their every move it seems they'll abuse their dominance to maximize profits.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Even if a monopoly were achieved on merit (I don't necessarily agree that it was in this case), the incentive to maintain that merit disappears once the power is obtained. Even if that weren't true (i.e. if power didn't corrupt) they could simply degrade naturally while the bar for entry would remain too high due to economies of scale and other reasons. And don't forget the incentives against downsizing: layoffs hurt labor, reduced consumption hurts suppliers while withdrawal of products and services hurts customers and the brand simultaneously. People have made better arguments than I have but my point is even a moments thought should make you reconsider your position.
notjustanymike 5y ago
Well they dropped the "don't be evil" motto a while back.
- fartcannon 5y ago
  This was actually an act of kindness. They removed the motto to let us know to abandon them. I believe it was a canary clause. Of course most people don't care, so here we are.
- jrmg 5y ago
  That’s actually a myth. Check out the last line here: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/ https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ksec 5y ago
>The baffling part..... The baffling part is 99.9% of the internet inclusive but not limited to HN were sold as they "Do No Evil". Even after they drop it. None of these is new. The strategic thinking of Google has been clear since Day 1. And now revealed in multiple email shown in court, both in terms of Chrome browser during Firefox era and Ads. ( And possibly Google Earth ? ) While it is nice to see sentiment finally changing after nearly 20 years. For some strange reason I just feel rather sad about it.
lamontcg 5y ago
Everyone reading this on Chrome should switch their browser today. Get off of Gmail while you're at it. There is no perfect alternative, but all those reasons why you think you can't switch don't add up to anything a fraction as bad as what Google is doing.
- Gene_Parmesan 5y ago
  Seriously. Anyone who cares at all about privacy should never have touched Chrome in the first place. The reasons for its existence were obvious from the outset.
- stackbutterflow 5y ago
  What's a good alternative to gmail? Fastmail? Protonmail? Other? I don't mind paying a small subscription.
  - pportela 5y ago
    Personally I liked disroot, not only does their email fits me well (most of the time), but so does their calendar. For some reason though, sometimes some emails take a bit longer to reach you, but that's quite rare.
  - microtonal 5y ago
    I have been using Fastmail for many years. My wife also switched a couple of years ago. The web interface is fast, they have great IMAP support, contribute to open standards (JMAP). They can also be the DNS server for your domain. When I contacted support a few years ago about a keyboard shortcut issue in their webmail, they were very friendly and rolled out a fixed to their beta version very quickly.
    - jeffparsons 5y ago
      I use Fastmail and have been very happy with them. They have been trying to deal with a DDoS attack from around the time this story broke. I initially didn't think anything of the timing, but given that this story is _literally about potentially criminal conspiracy_ it tickles the part of my brain that wants to indulge in other conspiracy theories -- e.g. someone connected to Google thinking "quick, we'd better make it look like a bad idea to try moving off GMail".
comeonseriously 5y ago
Probably because of a spreadsheet. If they made the right deals, etc. the numbers they report and the returns to the investors increase. Any time you ask, "why?", the answer is money for the investors.

by aasasd 5y ago

sixothree 5y ago

> The swindle with FLOC was pretty obviously tied in this, but people still went in circles discussing whether it's private or not, and downvoting those who said FLOC is a trap. The brigading on HN in particular seems extremely obvious when it comes to Google related articles.

braveyellowtoad 5y ago

Woah, so if a user is logged into chrome, Google has permission / is able to track all web activity for that user?

vasachi 5y ago
Doesn't chrome have browsing history sync?
- aasasd 5y ago
  Uh uh! While I'm obviously no fan of Google and Chrome, afaik the synced data is encrypted, or at least Goog says so. I.e. it's used just for syncing. Can't remember, though, if it's always encrypted, or just optionally encrypted.
  - milankragujevic 5y ago
    Optionally encrypted, if you provide your own sync passphrase.
aasasd 5y ago
Frankly, I'm not sure about the current state of things, seeing as it likely has changed several times in the past few years. However, a) I'm not sure why Goog would want to bother with browser accounts otherwise, and b) my use of Chrome ceased soonish after I had the following experience in the early 2010s: - set up a new empty site, listed absolutely nowhere, on quite dedicated hosting. - open it in Chrome. - a couple minutes later, observe Googlebot appearing in the visitor logs of the site. Lastly, if you go to the ‘My activity’ settings on Google, you can see: “Include Chrome history and activity from sites, apps, and devices that use Google services”, which I guess can still be dissected further. And I have some website visits from 2016 listed there: including Wikipedia, which doesn't seem to use Google Analytics currently (not sure about 2016)—though these could be visits through Google search. Also, text in the linked tweet directly says that Google tracks users on third-party sites through Chrome.
- adriancr 5y ago
  This could also be via dns records if you published some they would get scanned

arthur_sav 5y ago

Personally, i don't think there's anything wrong with holding a monopoly as long as it stems from merit. However, we are proven time after time that power corrupts. Unless there's a regulatory body to watch their every move it seems they'll abuse their dominance to maximize profits.

guerrilla 5y ago
Even if a monopoly were achieved on merit (I don't necessarily agree that it was in this case), the incentive to maintain that merit disappears once the power is obtained. Even if that weren't true (i.e. if power didn't corrupt) they could simply degrade naturally while the bar for entry would remain too high due to economies of scale and other reasons. And don't forget the incentives against downsizing: layoffs hurt labor, reduced consumption hurts suppliers while withdrawal of products and services hurts customers and the brand simultaneously. People have made better arguments than I have but my point is even a moments thought should make you reconsider your position.

notjustanymike 5y ago

Well they dropped the "don't be evil" motto a while back.

fartcannon 5y ago
This was actually an act of kindness. They removed the motto to let us know to abandon them. I believe it was a canary clause. Of course most people don't care, so here we are.
jrmg 5y ago
That’s actually a myth. Check out the last line here: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/ https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ksec 5y ago

>The baffling part..... The baffling part is 99.9% of the internet inclusive but not limited to HN were sold as they "Do No Evil". Even after they drop it. None of these is new. The strategic thinking of Google has been clear since Day 1. And now revealed in multiple email shown in court, both in terms of Chrome browser during Firefox era and Ads. ( And possibly Google Earth ? ) While it is nice to see sentiment finally changing after nearly 20 years. For some strange reason I just feel rather sad about it.

lamontcg 5y ago

Everyone reading this on Chrome should switch their browser today. Get off of Gmail while you're at it. There is no perfect alternative, but all those reasons why you think you can't switch don't add up to anything a fraction as bad as what Google is doing.

Gene_Parmesan 5y ago
Seriously. Anyone who cares at all about privacy should never have touched Chrome in the first place. The reasons for its existence were obvious from the outset.
stackbutterflow 5y ago
What's a good alternative to gmail? Fastmail? Protonmail? Other? I don't mind paying a small subscription.
- pportela 5y ago
  Personally I liked disroot, not only does their email fits me well (most of the time), but so does their calendar. For some reason though, sometimes some emails take a bit longer to reach you, but that's quite rare.
- microtonal 5y ago
  I have been using Fastmail for many years. My wife also switched a couple of years ago. The web interface is fast, they have great IMAP support, contribute to open standards (JMAP). They can also be the DNS server for your domain. When I contacted support a few years ago about a keyboard shortcut issue in their webmail, they were very friendly and rolled out a fixed to their beta version very quickly.
  - jeffparsons 5y ago
    I use Fastmail and have been very happy with them. They have been trying to deal with a DDoS attack from around the time this story broke. I initially didn't think anything of the timing, but given that this story is _literally about potentially criminal conspiracy_ it tickles the part of my brain that wants to indulge in other conspiracy theories -- e.g. someone connected to Google thinking "quick, we'd better make it look like a bad idea to try moving off GMail".

comeonseriously 5y ago

Probably because of a spreadsheet. If they made the right deals, etc. the numbers they report and the returns to the investors increase. Any time you ask, "why?", the answer is money for the investors.