9 ms·

Android launches yet another way to spy on users with “Privacy Sandbox” beta

198 points by jacooper 4y ago

duringmath 4y ago
I don't know why the Ars Google guy is so hostile toward the company but good grief! Every other outlet "google releasing their version of Apple's ATT" Ars Technica guy "Google will watch you while you sleep"
- throwaway2056 4y ago
  Sure the criticism about Privacy Sandbox is valid. News journalists should dog food Firefox (to encourage end users) and then avoid Chrome. (i.e) they make sure the webpages work great with Firefox. Usually everything works better with Chrome. The reason for the give would be sorry... Our livelihood depends on tracking/ads etc. Oh BTW, I (as a journalist ) am all for privacy but my corporate overlord (CondeNast incase of Ars) forces us to do this/that. It is the same thing w.r.t. Firefox.
  - cma 4y ago
    I've never had problems on the Ars site using Firefox.
  - seanhunter 4y ago
    Firstly, journalists are not for the most part going to be the people designing the webpages. They will submit copy to some kind of CMS. So if a site isn't working well on Firefox/mobile/whatever it's generally not going to be the journo who is to blame it will be their designers probably. The exception to this would be small one-person type outfits but those are mostly on substack these days rather than running their own site. Secondly Ars Technica works completely fine for me on Firefox. I say that as someone who exclusively uses firefox and only ever breaks out chrome to debug compatibility issues and I can't recall ever having a problem with Ars Technica. Are you saying it doesn't work for you?
- izacus 4y ago
  Yeah, ArsTechnica really has an anti-Google hardon, it's kinda a pattern where they always choose the worst possible hit piece title when it goes anything in relation to that company. When others do similar things they tend to be much more neutral. But such is the way of modern digital media - do you think "Google creates a new Privacy Sandbox feature for Android" would bring the same type of clicks, comments and advertiser revenue than one titled "Google will spy on your in your sleep" ? :D
  - causi 4y ago
    Anti-Google is what gets the pageviews. Ars has been sliding toward clickbait for a long time now.
    - DHPersonal 4y ago
      But Privacy Sandbox seems legitimately bad. How is pointing that out clickbait? It's okay to criticize a technology company, even — or perhaps especially — if it is the manufacturer of a device one uses.
      - izacus 4y ago
        You're missing the forest for the trees - it's the pattern we're commenting on. ArsTechnica (with Ron Amadeo as Android author) has a consistent history of hit pieces in this area that's easy to see - even when it comes to hardware reviews theirs standout as especially negative in comparison to everyone else. Is Privacy Sandbox really a lie and bad? Who knows, ArsTechnica will be biased against it either way so you need a better source. (Unless of course you deeply hate Google, then they'll be writing to soothe your soul and confirm your bias. Go ahead then.)
        causi 4y ago
        Ron has such a weird mix of being the only guy willing to state the obvious and being completely unhinged. Like he's willing to state that curved screens and camera notches and no headphone jack are stupid, but he also consistently says whatever Pixel is newest is the best android phone ever despite usually not being more than 72 hours away from Ars Technica posting a story about whatever batshit insane hardware fault the Pixel is currently suffering from.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Can it do the thing that ATT does where I can globally or on a per app basis say do not track and have it honored under threat of getting the banhammer from the Play Store? Because I really don’t care about advertisers having a new cool way to track me, I care that I can force them off by policy and the sandbox seems to not have that feature.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    No. > On Android, the Privacy Sandbox tracking is in addition to all the usual individual tracking methods; it's not being pitched as an alternative to anything. The Privacy Sandbox on Android is toothless, and Google has no plans to reduce tracking on Android.
- jacooper 4y ago
  Because it doesn't actually improve privacy?
- quanticle 4y ago
  I agree that Ars Technica has an anti-Google stance, but in this case, it seems to be accurate, so I'm not sure what the problem is. The "privacy sandbox" on Android is opt-in… on the part of app developers, not users. If app developers want to track users with cookies and device IDs, they can still do that. It's not anything like what iOS does, where tracking is disabled unless the user opts in. So yes, while the Ars Technica headline may be a bit hyperbolic, I think it's far closer to the truth than a headline which claims that Privacy Sandbox is comparable to ATT.
- dns_snek 4y ago
  Are you legitimately arguing in favour of corporate-sponsored fake news?
- nerdjon 4y ago
  As others have stated, it's not a version of Apple's ATT. Not even close. Personally my biggest issue with this is its naming. I think it is a borderline deceiving name given what it is actually doing. But they chose a good marketing term so other outlets would say exactly what you think Ars should be saying, but they are not falling for it and actually reporting what it is doing. That name will trick users into thinking that Google is actually taking privacy seriously (they are not).
- xnx 4y ago
  I would normally agree that the headline is sensationalist/clickbait, but this author seems to know his stuff and present things accurately. He also wrote the best article I know of on the history of Google chat apps: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/08/a-decade-and-a-half-of-instability-the-history-of-google-messaging-apps/7/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/08/a-decade-and-a-half-...
nargas 4y ago
What can you expect from an ad company ? Not tracking you would mean hurting their own business.
- jqpabc123 4y ago
  The really crazy part --- it doesn't have to be this way. Google could easily switch to context sensitive ads but they don't because advertisers pay extra for "personalized". Personally, I doubt anyone can really justify the added expense. The entire process is opaque to make any comparison difficult if not impossible. Just because I bought pet supplies last week, does it really make sense for pets supply ads to follow me all over the internet --- even on unrelated web sites?
  - saiya-jin 4y ago
    It isn't so simple, because what makes google (and facebook in its own ecosystem) so valuable are all the data they gathered about you. If you make ads context-sensitive, google is not bringing anything better on the table than any startup in that domain could bring, maybe some minor cost optimization due to scale. But they can sell customized ads stating that they will be very well targeted regardless of current content. Which seems to be what advertisers want much more, and reason why facebook never opened up their apis to google+ IIRC, your social graph and its use is basically the only worthy thing on whole facebook. It of course brings all this tracking evil, why google stopped being morally OK company etc. But the money are there.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    >because advertisers pay extra for "personalized". >Personally, I doubt anyone can really justify the added expense. The CPM of an ad is based off on auction. There is no extra fee for personal ads. The ad spot is just worth more and advertisers are willing to bid more money for access to the ad spot. If people can't justify the expenses the price of the ad spot will fall until people can.
jqpabc123 4y ago
Bottom line --- Google is privacy invasion by default. I use e/OS with Brave browser --- privacy by default. Both based on Google source but cleansed and stripped of tracking. Personalized ads are mainly an annoyance and a really dumb idea in my opinion. Context sensitive ads are much easier to implement, more privacy respecting and the only ones that are moderately useful and acceptable.
- chasil 4y ago
  I have Brave as a secondary browser. I run Lineage, where I have not loaded any version of Gapps. My goto browser is Bromite (https://www.bromite.org https://www.bromite.org), which I have configured default incognito and otherwise high security. I have loaded Magisk, then the modules for MicroG: https://www.reddit.com/r/MicroG/comments/shmpng/confirmed_safetynet_passing_on_lineageos_microg/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MicroG/comments/shmpng/confirmed_sa... Wouldn't it be great if all Android users could wake up to this tomorrow? It would be an interesting day. I should try e/OS sometime. The guy who maintained Mandrake Linux is in charge.
  - jqpabc123 4y ago
    I run Lineage Even without GApps, Lineage still includes links to Google. e/OS had a list of some of these at one time. They remove these links and include MicroG in the default install. Others may disagree but in my opinion, it is a pretty good compromise between security, privacy and usability.
    - chasil 4y ago
      I think the links are very few, the main one being captive portal detection for wifi logins. In exchange for this, Lineage delivers the monthly security patches first, mostly guaranteed to be in place by the 15th of every month (load the first nightly published after that date, and it will be bundled).
      - chopin 4y ago
tyfon 4y ago
There is an off switch. That's all I need to know personally.
- CharlesW 4y ago
  This is why the naming is so nefarious. Users aren't going to turn off what they believe is a privacy feature.
bno1 4y ago
I don't really get the point of the article. You can opt out of the privacy sandbox and block interests you don't want apps to see. The biggest change seems to be that chrome cand feed data into this system through an Android API, but doesn't this already happen through telemetry, analytics scripts and fingerprinting? You can also just not use chrome.
- shakna 4y ago
  You can only opt out, once you know that it exists. To know that it exists, you first need to come across something such as the article.
- quanticle 4y ago
  The point of the article is that Google is pitching Privacy Sandbox as the Android counterpart to Apple's App Tracking Transparency, when, in reality, it's anything but. App Tracking Transparency disables tracking unless the user opts in. Privacy Sandbox only disables tracking if the developer opts in. You can see this by reviewing the developer documentation [1] for Privacy Sandbox. It's totally optional on the part of the developer. Pitching Privacy Sandbox as an alternative to ATT deceptive marketing. [1]: https://developer.android.com/design-for-safety/privacy-sandbox https://developer.android.com/design-for-safety/privacy-sand...
- jacooper 4y ago
  The point of the article to deciphers google's false marketing that this is a privacy improvement when it clearly isn't.
NayamAmarshe 4y ago
At this point, I don't think there's anything left for Google to spy on. It's like asking how wet the water is.
newaccount2021 4y ago
[dead]
userbinator 4y ago
They've clearly learned from politicians in naming things so that the unaware and easily convinced will think it's a good thing from the name alone.
- baynoob 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
cageface 4y ago
Ron Amadeo is so relentlessly critical of Google I've stopped reading his articles. Overall I find coverage on Ars to be pretty good but he really seems to have an axe to grind.
- habosa 4y ago
  Yeah I’m surprised they’ve let him go so far. He’s not generally wrong but the level of bias and snark in the articles is fairly unprofessional for a site like Ars.
- jacooper 4y ago
  What? What is false in this article? Its better then believing google lies, it doesn't even replace current tracking! > party tracking cookies in Chrome once the system rolls out. On Android, the Privacy Sandbox tracking is in addition to all the usual individual tracking methods; it's not being pitched as an alternative to anything. The Privacy Sandbox on Android is toothless, and Google has no plans to reduce tracking on Android.
- GrinningFool 4y ago
  Where do you see this? This claim was also made earlier in the comments on this article. But looking at Amadeo's history - at least at the headline level - I don't see it: https://arstechnica.com/author/ronamadeo/ https://arstechnica.com/author/ronamadeo/
  - cageface 4y ago
    Go actually read the ones that pertain directly to Google and see if you still don't see it.
shmapf 4y ago
I've been staunchly on the Android side of the Android / iOS question, but this carry-on with refusing to block tracking like Apple has done is really making me consider switching.
- kube-system 4y ago
  Waiting for Google to protect your privacy is like waiting on a billboard company to improve the natural beauty of the roadside landscape.
  - 0xfaded 4y ago
    I already have a second hand iphone for iMessage. Having a "sanctioned" device for baking apps and a device I control for everything else seems like the best hope for compromise these days.
- jqpabc123 4y ago
  No need to pay double or triple for hardware. There are lots of privacy focused alternatives that are Android based. Personally, I like e/OS: https://e.foundation/ https://e.foundation/ You can buy a ready to use phone on their web site or you can install the OS on a compatible phone of your own. I have installed this on about 10 phones (all Motorola) for friends and family. Here is an example of one that I just put together as a Christmas present. https://www.amazon.com/Motorola-T-Mobile-Unlocked-XT2113-2-Smartphone/dp/B09DTHD61W/ref=sr_1_6 https://www.amazon.com/Motorola-T-Mobile-Unlocked-XT2113-2-S... As a de-Googled phone, the Google Play store doesn't work but that's no big loss because I can get any software I need from F-Droid and Aurora Store. https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.aurora.store/ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.aurora.store/
  - 2-718-281-828 4y ago
    where did this come from all of a sudden? I thought I knew all the Android alternatives. why does this super polished website for this out of nowhere suddenly maintained technology give me strong [intelligence agency of your choice] vibes?
pleb_nz 4y ago
Anything mentioning privacy in it's name now screams the opposite. It's not a tainted term.
euix 4y ago
I have been using LineageOS on old Pixels/LG phones for over a year and half now. So far no real problems and it is hella lot faster then the stock Android they came with. I find my needs really just sit between a dumb phone and all the gadgets and software of the latest smartphones - if it can call, run a chat messenger, snap an occasional photo that's really about it.
- jacooper 4y ago
  For a pixel I would highly recommend GrapheneOS
jszymborski 4y ago
Nonsense like this makes me happy to be on GrapheneOS.
- danjoredd 4y ago
  I recently switched to that myself. Tired of Google not respecting our private lives and wanting to know every single action we take. Wish it worked on more phones than just the Pixel line so more people could use it
  - jfghi 4y ago
    Further, I’m amazed at the level of irrelevancy of their ads. I can’t think of a single purchase I’ve made or will make that corresponds to an ad I’ve seen on YouTube.
    - lostsoil 4y ago
      > I can’t think of a single purchase I’ve made or will make that corresponds to an ad I’ve seen on YouTube. I can tell you a secret about ads: they aren't supposed to work on your conscious brain. The aim to ensure that on your next grocery run you choose "prime water" over "gaterode" because you heard about this new brand which was recommended by your favourite youtuber or choose "budwiser" over other no-name brand beer because you saw a cool superbowl ad.
  - jszymborski 4y ago
    Yah the device restriction is a bummer.
- mynameisash 4y ago
  I just tried GrapheneOS yesterday. Installation on my new phone was a breeze, but once I was in, there was... Nothing. The "Apps" app, which I assumed was an alternative to the Google Play store, had literally nothing except a link to install Google Play services. So I installed that and the Play store, which, due to GrapheneOS's sandboxing, was probably better than the stock Android. But it didn't even work well. Plenty of apps I tried to install wouldn't. After about 3hrs of playing with it, I said "fuck it," and flashed the stock Android back onto the phone. I really want to switch, but that was far too much work.
McDyver 4y ago
So, is this the return of FLoC[0]? They didn't get buy-in from other browsers, so they are doing it at OS level. Nice /s 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_Learning_of_Cohorts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_Learning_of_Cohort...
- jacooper 4y ago
  Its even worse, its not replacing current tracking! > On Android, the Privacy Sandbox tracking is in addition to all the usual individual tracking methods; it's not being pitched as an alternative to anything. The Privacy Sandbox on Android is toothless, and Google has no plans to reduce tracking on Android.
  - quanticle 4y ago
    A lot of the discussion in this thread has been about how Privacy Sandbox has been deceptively marketed to users, and I agree that Google's marketing has been deceptive. However, what I really want to know is, what's in it for app developers? Privacy Sandbox is opt-in, but what advantages do app developers gain by opting in? Will they be ranked more highly in Play Store search results? Why should an app developer totally rewrite their analytics code to use Privacy Sandbox when existing methods of tracking already work, and will continue to do so? Who does Privacy Sandbox benefit? It doesn't benefit users, because it's not mandatory for apps to respect it. It doesn't benefit developers, because it's non-zero work to migrate, and zero benefit (because existing tracking and analytics systems will continue to work). It's doesn't benefit Google, as a whole, because it's one more API that they have to continue to support. What was the point of all this?
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      The point is to try to get people to consent to giving up privacy. That benefits everyone who is trying to make money by gathering data about users -- which happens to be Google's primary business approach.
JohnFen 4y ago
I have a bunch of issues with the "Privacy Sandbox", but my #1 issue is that it's called "Privacy Sandbox". That term implies that a sandbox is being used to preserve your privacy, when it is, in fact, a system designed for the opposite of that.
- Maxburn 4y ago
  You really have to sit back and admire the marketing team that came up with this spin.
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    They just copied Congress.
- madduci 4y ago
  After all the crap that Google put in Android, I still don't understand why some other alternative ecosystems like Ubuntu Phone or GrapheneOS or Mankato (PinePhone) aren't attractive for users and developers. What's holding everyone back? I understand that without users there won't be apps, but also without apps there won't be users, since they offer just the basics. Imagine if TikTok or WhatsApp have had an app for those others OSes
  - zeagle 4y ago
    They only thing holding me back from calyxos is the lack of Android Auto. I know that it has its own privacy issues but man is it convenient with a compatible head unit. Its possible to add Android auto stubs to it to give privileged access, compile your own build, sign it, flash it, and install the apks yourself as a DIY middle ground. I did it for a pixel 6 and was happy with it but bootlooped the phone applying my first compiled OTA update so this scared me off trying it again and I went back to stock. I understand why the team is against it but unfortunate. Maybe another take on your question is why did windows phone and bbm fail?
  - iforgotpassword 4y ago
    It is the Apps, and you perfectly summarized how it's a feedback loop. It wasn't the only reason why Windows phone failed, but it was one of them, even though Microsoft threw money at companies to at least have the most important apps available from pretty much day one. The app store still was pathetic and a lot of basic quality of life apps missing. And they kept going for what, 6 years before they announced they'll scrap it, and kept support going for another 4 years. Now imagine something new comes up, no matter how awesome the system is, no matter how well executed every move of the company behind it is: how much is a smartphone worth that doesn't have WhatsApp, Facebook, Google Maps, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, you name it. And no, the browser versions don't count. Heck, you can just use lineage os without the Google services to get a taste of this. And that's a system where you still can get all the Apps with a tiny bit of effort, as long as they don't depend on the Google services. It sucks for the most part. But really, since you asked, just try it. Get some used phone that's supported by lineage OS and challenge yourself to use it exclusively for a month. Or maybe for fun/hard mode, get a Lumia 950 and try that for a month.
charcircuit 4y ago
The whole point is this will replace more intrusive tracking. It is trying to make it viable for businesses to switch to something that protects people's privacy more without killing off companies that depend on effective advertising. Apple took a poor approch in not having viable replacement before their changes and this resulted in many companies being negatively effected and many companies going out of business. When you make a big change to your ecosystem you need to consider all of the stakeholders else you can cause a subset of people to experience a lot of pain. The author falsely claims Chrome is killing off ad blockers too with manifest v3 since manifest v3 protects the privacy and security of users better. This guy isn't consistent about being pro privacy. He simply hates Google. Manifest v3 doesn't even kill off ad blockers, nor does the Chrome team intend to as they have been improving the APIs to enable them to function. The strongest argument is that chrome extension store will reject manifest v3 extensions that want overly broad permission to access the content of any site you visit.
- PYTHONDJANGO 4y ago
  Google could protect privacy very easy by letting me filter app in the app store by capabilities. I can not just see apps that do not X or Y. Whole app store is still a great malware distribution project - horrible. Managers responsible for that mess should go to jail for twenty years.
skrowl 4y ago
lol imagine being a "journalist" in the current year and writing "Rather than match iOS's tracking limits, Google built an additional tracking system." as if you think iOS tracking does anything close to what it says it's going to do ( ex https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-privacy-4th-lawsuit-1850048418 https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-privacy-4th-lawsu... ). This is a hit peace written by an iZealot who doesn't even address Apple's system shortcomings.
Lucyj001 4y ago
[dead]
Lucyj001 4y ago
[dead]
seanhunter 4y ago
Anyone remember FLOC, which google attempted to push through on the web and then was forced to abandon? [1]. This just seems to be "floc, but for mobile apps". [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/25/22900567/google-floc-abandon-topics-api-cookies-tracking https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/25/22900567/google-floc-aban...

198 points by jacooper 4y ago

I don't know why the Ars Google guy is so hostile toward the company but good grief! Every other outlet "google releasing their version of Apple's ATT" Ars Technica guy "Google will watch you while you sleep"

throwaway2056 4y ago
Sure the criticism about Privacy Sandbox is valid. News journalists should dog food Firefox (to encourage end users) and then avoid Chrome. (i.e) they make sure the webpages work great with Firefox. Usually everything works better with Chrome. The reason for the give would be sorry... Our livelihood depends on tracking/ads etc. Oh BTW, I (as a journalist ) am all for privacy but my corporate overlord (CondeNast incase of Ars) forces us to do this/that. It is the same thing w.r.t. Firefox.
- cma 4y ago
  I've never had problems on the Ars site using Firefox.
- seanhunter 4y ago
  Firstly, journalists are not for the most part going to be the people designing the webpages. They will submit copy to some kind of CMS. So if a site isn't working well on Firefox/mobile/whatever it's generally not going to be the journo who is to blame it will be their designers probably. The exception to this would be small one-person type outfits but those are mostly on substack these days rather than running their own site. Secondly Ars Technica works completely fine for me on Firefox. I say that as someone who exclusively uses firefox and only ever breaks out chrome to debug compatibility issues and I can't recall ever having a problem with Ars Technica. Are you saying it doesn't work for you?
izacus 4y ago
Yeah, ArsTechnica really has an anti-Google hardon, it's kinda a pattern where they always choose the worst possible hit piece title when it goes anything in relation to that company. When others do similar things they tend to be much more neutral. But such is the way of modern digital media - do you think "Google creates a new Privacy Sandbox feature for Android" would bring the same type of clicks, comments and advertiser revenue than one titled "Google will spy on your in your sleep" ? :D
- causi 4y ago
  Anti-Google is what gets the pageviews. Ars has been sliding toward clickbait for a long time now.
  - DHPersonal 4y ago
    But Privacy Sandbox seems legitimately bad. How is pointing that out clickbait? It's okay to criticize a technology company, even — or perhaps especially — if it is the manufacturer of a device one uses.
    - izacus 4y ago
      You're missing the forest for the trees - it's the pattern we're commenting on. ArsTechnica (with Ron Amadeo as Android author) has a consistent history of hit pieces in this area that's easy to see - even when it comes to hardware reviews theirs standout as especially negative in comparison to everyone else. Is Privacy Sandbox really a lie and bad? Who knows, ArsTechnica will be biased against it either way so you need a better source. (Unless of course you deeply hate Google, then they'll be writing to soothe your soul and confirm your bias. Go ahead then.)
      - causi 4y ago
        Ron has such a weird mix of being the only guy willing to state the obvious and being completely unhinged. Like he's willing to state that curved screens and camera notches and no headphone jack are stupid, but he also consistently says whatever Pixel is newest is the best android phone ever despite usually not being more than 72 hours away from Ars Technica posting a story about whatever batshit insane hardware fault the Pixel is currently suffering from.
Spivak 4y ago
Can it do the thing that ATT does where I can globally or on a per app basis say do not track and have it honored under threat of getting the banhammer from the Play Store? Because I really don’t care about advertisers having a new cool way to track me, I care that I can force them off by policy and the sandbox seems to not have that feature.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  No. > On Android, the Privacy Sandbox tracking is in addition to all the usual individual tracking methods; it's not being pitched as an alternative to anything. The Privacy Sandbox on Android is toothless, and Google has no plans to reduce tracking on Android.
jacooper 4y ago
Because it doesn't actually improve privacy?
quanticle 4y ago
I agree that Ars Technica has an anti-Google stance, but in this case, it seems to be accurate, so I'm not sure what the problem is. The "privacy sandbox" on Android is opt-in… on the part of app developers, not users. If app developers want to track users with cookies and device IDs, they can still do that. It's not anything like what iOS does, where tracking is disabled unless the user opts in. So yes, while the Ars Technica headline may be a bit hyperbolic, I think it's far closer to the truth than a headline which claims that Privacy Sandbox is comparable to ATT.
dns_snek 4y ago
Are you legitimately arguing in favour of corporate-sponsored fake news?
nerdjon 4y ago
As others have stated, it's not a version of Apple's ATT. Not even close. Personally my biggest issue with this is its naming. I think it is a borderline deceiving name given what it is actually doing. But they chose a good marketing term so other outlets would say exactly what you think Ars should be saying, but they are not falling for it and actually reporting what it is doing. That name will trick users into thinking that Google is actually taking privacy seriously (they are not).
xnx 4y ago
I would normally agree that the headline is sensationalist/clickbait, but this author seems to know his stuff and present things accurately. He also wrote the best article I know of on the history of Google chat apps: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/08/a-decade-and-a-half-of-instability-the-history-of-google-messaging-apps/7/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/08/a-decade-and-a-half-...

nargas 4y ago

What can you expect from an ad company ? Not tracking you would mean hurting their own business.

jqpabc123 4y ago
The really crazy part --- it doesn't have to be this way. Google could easily switch to context sensitive ads but they don't because advertisers pay extra for "personalized". Personally, I doubt anyone can really justify the added expense. The entire process is opaque to make any comparison difficult if not impossible. Just because I bought pet supplies last week, does it really make sense for pets supply ads to follow me all over the internet --- even on unrelated web sites?
- saiya-jin 4y ago
  It isn't so simple, because what makes google (and facebook in its own ecosystem) so valuable are all the data they gathered about you. If you make ads context-sensitive, google is not bringing anything better on the table than any startup in that domain could bring, maybe some minor cost optimization due to scale. But they can sell customized ads stating that they will be very well targeted regardless of current content. Which seems to be what advertisers want much more, and reason why facebook never opened up their apis to google+ IIRC, your social graph and its use is basically the only worthy thing on whole facebook. It of course brings all this tracking evil, why google stopped being morally OK company etc. But the money are there.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  >because advertisers pay extra for "personalized". >Personally, I doubt anyone can really justify the added expense. The CPM of an ad is based off on auction. There is no extra fee for personal ads. The ad spot is just worth more and advertisers are willing to bid more money for access to the ad spot. If people can't justify the expenses the price of the ad spot will fall until people can.

jqpabc123 4y ago

Bottom line --- Google is privacy invasion by default. I use e/OS with Brave browser --- privacy by default. Both based on Google source but cleansed and stripped of tracking. Personalized ads are mainly an annoyance and a really dumb idea in my opinion. Context sensitive ads are much easier to implement, more privacy respecting and the only ones that are moderately useful and acceptable.

chasil 4y ago
I have Brave as a secondary browser. I run Lineage, where I have not loaded any version of Gapps. My goto browser is Bromite (https://www.bromite.org https://www.bromite.org), which I have configured default incognito and otherwise high security. I have loaded Magisk, then the modules for MicroG: https://www.reddit.com/r/MicroG/comments/shmpng/confirmed_safetynet_passing_on_lineageos_microg/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MicroG/comments/shmpng/confirmed_sa... Wouldn't it be great if all Android users could wake up to this tomorrow? It would be an interesting day. I should try e/OS sometime. The guy who maintained Mandrake Linux is in charge.
- jqpabc123 4y ago
  I run Lineage Even without GApps, Lineage still includes links to Google. e/OS had a list of some of these at one time. They remove these links and include MicroG in the default install. Others may disagree but in my opinion, it is a pretty good compromise between security, privacy and usability.
  - chasil 4y ago
    I think the links are very few, the main one being captive portal detection for wifi logins. In exchange for this, Lineage delivers the monthly security patches first, mostly guaranteed to be in place by the 15th of every month (load the first nightly published after that date, and it will be bundled).
    - chopin 4y ago

tyfon 4y ago

There is an off switch. That's all I need to know personally.

CharlesW 4y ago
This is why the naming is so nefarious. Users aren't going to turn off what they believe is a privacy feature.

bno1 4y ago

I don't really get the point of the article. You can opt out of the privacy sandbox and block interests you don't want apps to see. The biggest change seems to be that chrome cand feed data into this system through an Android API, but doesn't this already happen through telemetry, analytics scripts and fingerprinting? You can also just not use chrome.

shakna 4y ago
You can only opt out, once you know that it exists. To know that it exists, you first need to come across something such as the article.
quanticle 4y ago
The point of the article is that Google is pitching Privacy Sandbox as the Android counterpart to Apple's App Tracking Transparency, when, in reality, it's anything but. App Tracking Transparency disables tracking unless the user opts in. Privacy Sandbox only disables tracking if the developer opts in. You can see this by reviewing the developer documentation [1] for Privacy Sandbox. It's totally optional on the part of the developer. Pitching Privacy Sandbox as an alternative to ATT deceptive marketing. [1]: https://developer.android.com/design-for-safety/privacy-sandbox https://developer.android.com/design-for-safety/privacy-sand...
jacooper 4y ago
The point of the article to deciphers google's false marketing that this is a privacy improvement when it clearly isn't.

NayamAmarshe 4y ago

At this point, I don't think there's anything left for Google to spy on. It's like asking how wet the water is.

newaccount2021 4y ago

[dead]

userbinator 4y ago

They've clearly learned from politicians in naming things so that the unaware and easily convinced will think it's a good thing from the name alone.

baynoob 4y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

cageface 4y ago

Ron Amadeo is so relentlessly critical of Google I've stopped reading his articles. Overall I find coverage on Ars to be pretty good but he really seems to have an axe to grind.

habosa 4y ago
Yeah I’m surprised they’ve let him go so far. He’s not generally wrong but the level of bias and snark in the articles is fairly unprofessional for a site like Ars.
jacooper 4y ago
What? What is false in this article? Its better then believing google lies, it doesn't even replace current tracking! > party tracking cookies in Chrome once the system rolls out. On Android, the Privacy Sandbox tracking is in addition to all the usual individual tracking methods; it's not being pitched as an alternative to anything. The Privacy Sandbox on Android is toothless, and Google has no plans to reduce tracking on Android.
GrinningFool 4y ago
Where do you see this? This claim was also made earlier in the comments on this article. But looking at Amadeo's history - at least at the headline level - I don't see it: https://arstechnica.com/author/ronamadeo/ https://arstechnica.com/author/ronamadeo/
- cageface 4y ago
  Go actually read the ones that pertain directly to Google and see if you still don't see it.

shmapf 4y ago

I've been staunchly on the Android side of the Android / iOS question, but this carry-on with refusing to block tracking like Apple has done is really making me consider switching.

kube-system 4y ago
Waiting for Google to protect your privacy is like waiting on a billboard company to improve the natural beauty of the roadside landscape.
- 0xfaded 4y ago
  I already have a second hand iphone for iMessage. Having a "sanctioned" device for baking apps and a device I control for everything else seems like the best hope for compromise these days.
jqpabc123 4y ago
No need to pay double or triple for hardware. There are lots of privacy focused alternatives that are Android based. Personally, I like e/OS: https://e.foundation/ https://e.foundation/ You can buy a ready to use phone on their web site or you can install the OS on a compatible phone of your own. I have installed this on about 10 phones (all Motorola) for friends and family. Here is an example of one that I just put together as a Christmas present. https://www.amazon.com/Motorola-T-Mobile-Unlocked-XT2113-2-Smartphone/dp/B09DTHD61W/ref=sr_1_6 https://www.amazon.com/Motorola-T-Mobile-Unlocked-XT2113-2-S... As a de-Googled phone, the Google Play store doesn't work but that's no big loss because I can get any software I need from F-Droid and Aurora Store. https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.aurora.store/ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.aurora.store/
- 2-718-281-828 4y ago
  where did this come from all of a sudden? I thought I knew all the Android alternatives. why does this super polished website for this out of nowhere suddenly maintained technology give me strong [intelligence agency of your choice] vibes?

pleb_nz 4y ago

Anything mentioning privacy in it's name now screams the opposite. It's not a tainted term.

euix 4y ago

I have been using LineageOS on old Pixels/LG phones for over a year and half now. So far no real problems and it is hella lot faster then the stock Android they came with. I find my needs really just sit between a dumb phone and all the gadgets and software of the latest smartphones - if it can call, run a chat messenger, snap an occasional photo that's really about it.

jacooper 4y ago
For a pixel I would highly recommend GrapheneOS

jszymborski 4y ago

Nonsense like this makes me happy to be on GrapheneOS.

danjoredd 4y ago
I recently switched to that myself. Tired of Google not respecting our private lives and wanting to know every single action we take. Wish it worked on more phones than just the Pixel line so more people could use it
- jfghi 4y ago
  Further, I’m amazed at the level of irrelevancy of their ads. I can’t think of a single purchase I’ve made or will make that corresponds to an ad I’ve seen on YouTube.
  - lostsoil 4y ago
    > I can’t think of a single purchase I’ve made or will make that corresponds to an ad I’ve seen on YouTube. I can tell you a secret about ads: they aren't supposed to work on your conscious brain. The aim to ensure that on your next grocery run you choose "prime water" over "gaterode" because you heard about this new brand which was recommended by your favourite youtuber or choose "budwiser" over other no-name brand beer because you saw a cool superbowl ad.
- jszymborski 4y ago
  Yah the device restriction is a bummer.
mynameisash 4y ago
I just tried GrapheneOS yesterday. Installation on my new phone was a breeze, but once I was in, there was... Nothing. The "Apps" app, which I assumed was an alternative to the Google Play store, had literally nothing except a link to install Google Play services. So I installed that and the Play store, which, due to GrapheneOS's sandboxing, was probably better than the stock Android. But it didn't even work well. Plenty of apps I tried to install wouldn't. After about 3hrs of playing with it, I said "fuck it," and flashed the stock Android back onto the phone. I really want to switch, but that was far too much work.

McDyver 4y ago

So, is this the return of FLoC[0]? They didn't get buy-in from other browsers, so they are doing it at OS level. Nice /s 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_Learning_of_Cohorts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_Learning_of_Cohort...

jacooper 4y ago
Its even worse, its not replacing current tracking! > On Android, the Privacy Sandbox tracking is in addition to all the usual individual tracking methods; it's not being pitched as an alternative to anything. The Privacy Sandbox on Android is toothless, and Google has no plans to reduce tracking on Android.
- quanticle 4y ago
  A lot of the discussion in this thread has been about how Privacy Sandbox has been deceptively marketed to users, and I agree that Google's marketing has been deceptive. However, what I really want to know is, what's in it for app developers? Privacy Sandbox is opt-in, but what advantages do app developers gain by opting in? Will they be ranked more highly in Play Store search results? Why should an app developer totally rewrite their analytics code to use Privacy Sandbox when existing methods of tracking already work, and will continue to do so? Who does Privacy Sandbox benefit? It doesn't benefit users, because it's not mandatory for apps to respect it. It doesn't benefit developers, because it's non-zero work to migrate, and zero benefit (because existing tracking and analytics systems will continue to work). It's doesn't benefit Google, as a whole, because it's one more API that they have to continue to support. What was the point of all this?
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    The point is to try to get people to consent to giving up privacy. That benefits everyone who is trying to make money by gathering data about users -- which happens to be Google's primary business approach.

JohnFen 4y ago

I have a bunch of issues with the "Privacy Sandbox", but my #1 issue is that it's called "Privacy Sandbox". That term implies that a sandbox is being used to preserve your privacy, when it is, in fact, a system designed for the opposite of that.

Maxburn 4y ago
You really have to sit back and admire the marketing team that came up with this spin.
- hellojesus 4y ago
  They just copied Congress.
madduci 4y ago
After all the crap that Google put in Android, I still don't understand why some other alternative ecosystems like Ubuntu Phone or GrapheneOS or Mankato (PinePhone) aren't attractive for users and developers. What's holding everyone back? I understand that without users there won't be apps, but also without apps there won't be users, since they offer just the basics. Imagine if TikTok or WhatsApp have had an app for those others OSes
- zeagle 4y ago
  They only thing holding me back from calyxos is the lack of Android Auto. I know that it has its own privacy issues but man is it convenient with a compatible head unit. Its possible to add Android auto stubs to it to give privileged access, compile your own build, sign it, flash it, and install the apks yourself as a DIY middle ground. I did it for a pixel 6 and was happy with it but bootlooped the phone applying my first compiled OTA update so this scared me off trying it again and I went back to stock. I understand why the team is against it but unfortunate. Maybe another take on your question is why did windows phone and bbm fail?
- iforgotpassword 4y ago
  It is the Apps, and you perfectly summarized how it's a feedback loop. It wasn't the only reason why Windows phone failed, but it was one of them, even though Microsoft threw money at companies to at least have the most important apps available from pretty much day one. The app store still was pathetic and a lot of basic quality of life apps missing. And they kept going for what, 6 years before they announced they'll scrap it, and kept support going for another 4 years. Now imagine something new comes up, no matter how awesome the system is, no matter how well executed every move of the company behind it is: how much is a smartphone worth that doesn't have WhatsApp, Facebook, Google Maps, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, you name it. And no, the browser versions don't count. Heck, you can just use lineage os without the Google services to get a taste of this. And that's a system where you still can get all the Apps with a tiny bit of effort, as long as they don't depend on the Google services. It sucks for the most part. But really, since you asked, just try it. Get some used phone that's supported by lineage OS and challenge yourself to use it exclusively for a month. Or maybe for fun/hard mode, get a Lumia 950 and try that for a month.

charcircuit 4y ago

The whole point is this will replace more intrusive tracking. It is trying to make it viable for businesses to switch to something that protects people's privacy more without killing off companies that depend on effective advertising. Apple took a poor approch in not having viable replacement before their changes and this resulted in many companies being negatively effected and many companies going out of business. When you make a big change to your ecosystem you need to consider all of the stakeholders else you can cause a subset of people to experience a lot of pain. The author falsely claims Chrome is killing off ad blockers too with manifest v3 since manifest v3 protects the privacy and security of users better. This guy isn't consistent about being pro privacy. He simply hates Google. Manifest v3 doesn't even kill off ad blockers, nor does the Chrome team intend to as they have been improving the APIs to enable them to function. The strongest argument is that chrome extension store will reject manifest v3 extensions that want overly broad permission to access the content of any site you visit.

PYTHONDJANGO 4y ago
Google could protect privacy very easy by letting me filter app in the app store by capabilities. I can not just see apps that do not X or Y. Whole app store is still a great malware distribution project - horrible. Managers responsible for that mess should go to jail for twenty years.

skrowl 4y ago

lol imagine being a "journalist" in the current year and writing "Rather than match iOS's tracking limits, Google built an additional tracking system." as if you think iOS tracking does anything close to what it says it's going to do ( ex https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-privacy-4th-lawsuit-1850048418 https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-privacy-4th-lawsu... ). This is a hit peace written by an iZealot who doesn't even address Apple's system shortcomings.

Lucyj001 4y ago

[dead]

Lucyj001 4y ago

[dead]

seanhunter 4y ago

Anyone remember FLOC, which google attempted to push through on the web and then was forced to abandon? [1]. This just seems to be "floc, but for mobile apps". [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/25/22900567/google-floc-abandon-topics-api-cookies-tracking https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/25/22900567/google-floc-aban...