5 ms·

It's nefarious how they ask you if you want to turn on "ad privacy", indicating that this feature increases your privacy when in reality it does the opposite.

by fh9302 3y ago

afavour 3y ago
Technically they’re correct: the privacy offered by this new system is superior to that which is offered by the web with no tracking protection. Thinking about it in a very abstract way I find the whole thing fascinating. Google is clearly terrified that the tracking protection offered by other browsers is going to become the norm and they’re trying to head that off at the pass by implementing this compromise. But I’m not sure why they’re all that worried about it, they still have the lions share or the browser market. Maybe they’re worried about incoming legislation?
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  It’s beautiful, from a sociopath’s perspective, if you think about it. “If you let me punch your teeth out, the stabbings will stop (sometime in the future, terms and conditions may apply)” All while refusing to acknowledge that there is an option that requires neither punching nor stabbing. To an uninformed user that takes Google’s words at face value it sounds like an upgrade.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  If I'm understanding correctly, they're not turning on some other tracking prevention when you enable this "feature". It's strictly a privacy downgrade.
  - Scion9066 3y ago
    Not yet but they can't just turn off third party cookies arbitrarily in their browser without giving time for sites and advertisers to update their systems to account for the removal. They're already facing anticompetitive/monopoly scrutiny on many other fronts, they don't need to shoot themselves in the foot in the advertising space as well. Thus the first step is to implement a replacement technology first and then make the change.
    - koolba 3y ago
      > Not yet but they can't just turn off third party cookies arbitrarily in their browser without giving time for sites and advertisers to update their systems to account for the removal. Of course they can. They just don’t want to.
      - imajoredinecon 3y ago
        No, they literally can't. The UK Competition and Markets Authority made Google promise they won't remove 3rd-party cookies from Chrome before adding alternatives.
        jesstaa 3y ago
        Sure they can. They just have to do it in a way that doesn't create a disadvantage for other advertising providers. Google isn't allowed to stop others tracking you without also removing their own ability to track you because that's anti-competitive.
        JoshTriplett 3y ago
        You are assuming reasonableness on behalf of the regulators in question. In an ideal world, they hopefully said "you cannot give information to your own advertising/analytics division that you don't give to others". However, they could just as easily have said "you must provide either third-party cookies or a replacement for them", without offering the much more reasonable alternative of turning both off and not giving Google advertising/analytics any information either. So, what did the regulators actually say, and does it in fact allow Google to turn off third-party cookies without any replacement? If it does, then this is Google's fault for adding this feature in Chrome. If it doesn't, then this is the fault of bad regulation.
        josefx 3y ago
        Google has a habit of limiting changes it does not like to specific countries. So if they are rolling out a UK mandated feature globally there is no question that Google is all for it.
  - modeless 3y ago
    After the launch of this feature they plan to disable third party cookies. It's not happening simultaneously because they would get hit with antitrust suits by adtech companies if they gave no time to transition.
  - JKCalhoun 3y ago
    That sounds then like a class action lawsuit waiting to be filed.
  - dbbk 3y ago
    We're in a transition period to turning off third-party cookies. When that happens, this is objectively more privacy-secure.
- handsclean 3y ago
  > Technically they’re correct: the privacy offered by this new system is superior to that which is offered by the web with no tracking protection. That’s not true, this new system is a tracker, not tracking protection. Simply turning it off improves privacy.
  - afavour 3y ago
    There’s literally no point in implementing this system if you aren’t going to pair it with tracking prevention, as Google plans to do.
    - handsclean 3y ago
      They’re planning on turning off one tracking system they use on us and turning on another, that’s not “tracking prevention”. Every other browser just turned off the old and didn’t replace it, and users are better off for it.
      - afavour 3y ago
        I’m aware. The OP said: > this feature increases your privacy when in reality it does the opposite My clarification is that their new tracking system does increase your privacy compared to the old. It just doesn’t increase it as much as other browsers. We’re not in disagreement about what is better for users.
        handsclean 3y ago
        We’re in agreement on the relative privacy, too. My point was just to challenge this “protection” / “prevention” framing. If somebody regularly mugs you then announces they’re going to start taking half as much when they mug you, and that only in response to people increasingly fighting back, framing that as “mugging protection” or “mugging prevention” is not just inaccurate, but pushes an assumption that this person is actually helping us and that demands of no mugging at all are unreasonable.
- redox99 3y ago
  As of right now they don't turn off 3rd party cookies when you enable this, so no. This objectively decreases your privacy.
charcircuit 3y ago
>in reality it does the opposite. Third party cookies can do everything the topics API can do and more. Third party cookies lets sites collect granular data about what exact site you on and any data they want from it. This API just gives them some topics which may even be a random chosen one and not a real one.
- fh9302 3y ago
  Can you give me a source that enabling the topics API disables third-party cookies? And once Chrome has phased out third-party cookies the topics API will strictly decrease my privacy, not increase it.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    >Can you give me a source that enabling the topics API disables third-party cookies? I never claimed that. The current estimated timeline for phasing out 3rd party cookies as of last month is: 23Q4 Opt in testing for sites 24Q1 1% disabled 24Q2 fully disabled https://privacysandbox.com/open-web/ https://privacysandbox.com/open-web/ > And once Chrome has phased out third-party cookies the topics API will strictly decrease my privacy, not increase it. You are free to disable topics, sites, or even the entire system altogether. While it does decrease your privacy in return you can get more relevant ads. With 3rd party cookies if you disable them all you will break things even if those things are unrelated to ads.
    - ndriscoll 3y ago
      Then bringing up third party cookies seems like a red herring. They're worse, but for example I have a pi-hole at home. This prompt will probably mislead my wife into accepting it as an improvement, while it will presumably undermine the tracking mitigations I've set up for her until I go fix it. This is unambiguously a privacy downgrade, regardless of what third party cookies may also be able to do.
      - charcircuit 3y ago

It's nefarious how they ask you if you want to turn on "ad privacy", indicating that this feature increases your privacy when in reality it does the opposite.

by fh9302 3y ago

It's nefarious how they ask you if you want to turn on "ad privacy", indicating that this feature increases your privacy when in reality it does the opposite.

afavour 3y ago

Technically they’re correct: the privacy offered by this new system is superior to that which is offered by the web with no tracking protection. Thinking about it in a very abstract way I find the whole thing fascinating. Google is clearly terrified that the tracking protection offered by other browsers is going to become the norm and they’re trying to head that off at the pass by implementing this compromise. But I’m not sure why they’re all that worried about it, they still have the lions share or the browser market. Maybe they’re worried about incoming legislation?

turquoisevar 3y ago
It’s beautiful, from a sociopath’s perspective, if you think about it. “If you let me punch your teeth out, the stabbings will stop (sometime in the future, terms and conditions may apply)” All while refusing to acknowledge that there is an option that requires neither punching nor stabbing. To an uninformed user that takes Google’s words at face value it sounds like an upgrade.
ndriscoll 3y ago
If I'm understanding correctly, they're not turning on some other tracking prevention when you enable this "feature". It's strictly a privacy downgrade.
- Scion9066 3y ago
  Not yet but they can't just turn off third party cookies arbitrarily in their browser without giving time for sites and advertisers to update their systems to account for the removal. They're already facing anticompetitive/monopoly scrutiny on many other fronts, they don't need to shoot themselves in the foot in the advertising space as well. Thus the first step is to implement a replacement technology first and then make the change.
  - koolba 3y ago
    > Not yet but they can't just turn off third party cookies arbitrarily in their browser without giving time for sites and advertisers to update their systems to account for the removal. Of course they can. They just don’t want to.
    - imajoredinecon 3y ago
      No, they literally can't. The UK Competition and Markets Authority made Google promise they won't remove 3rd-party cookies from Chrome before adding alternatives.
      - jesstaa 3y ago
        Sure they can. They just have to do it in a way that doesn't create a disadvantage for other advertising providers. Google isn't allowed to stop others tracking you without also removing their own ability to track you because that's anti-competitive.
        JoshTriplett 3y ago
        You are assuming reasonableness on behalf of the regulators in question. In an ideal world, they hopefully said "you cannot give information to your own advertising/analytics division that you don't give to others". However, they could just as easily have said "you must provide either third-party cookies or a replacement for them", without offering the much more reasonable alternative of turning both off and not giving Google advertising/analytics any information either. So, what did the regulators actually say, and does it in fact allow Google to turn off third-party cookies without any replacement? If it does, then this is Google's fault for adding this feature in Chrome. If it doesn't, then this is the fault of bad regulation.
      - josefx 3y ago
        Google has a habit of limiting changes it does not like to specific countries. So if they are rolling out a UK mandated feature globally there is no question that Google is all for it.
- modeless 3y ago
  After the launch of this feature they plan to disable third party cookies. It's not happening simultaneously because they would get hit with antitrust suits by adtech companies if they gave no time to transition.
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  That sounds then like a class action lawsuit waiting to be filed.
- dbbk 3y ago
  We're in a transition period to turning off third-party cookies. When that happens, this is objectively more privacy-secure.
handsclean 3y ago
> Technically they’re correct: the privacy offered by this new system is superior to that which is offered by the web with no tracking protection. That’s not true, this new system is a tracker, not tracking protection. Simply turning it off improves privacy.
- afavour 3y ago
  There’s literally no point in implementing this system if you aren’t going to pair it with tracking prevention, as Google plans to do.
  - handsclean 3y ago
    They’re planning on turning off one tracking system they use on us and turning on another, that’s not “tracking prevention”. Every other browser just turned off the old and didn’t replace it, and users are better off for it.
    - afavour 3y ago
      I’m aware. The OP said: > this feature increases your privacy when in reality it does the opposite My clarification is that their new tracking system does increase your privacy compared to the old. It just doesn’t increase it as much as other browsers. We’re not in disagreement about what is better for users.
      - handsclean 3y ago
        We’re in agreement on the relative privacy, too. My point was just to challenge this “protection” / “prevention” framing. If somebody regularly mugs you then announces they’re going to start taking half as much when they mug you, and that only in response to people increasingly fighting back, framing that as “mugging protection” or “mugging prevention” is not just inaccurate, but pushes an assumption that this person is actually helping us and that demands of no mugging at all are unreasonable.
redox99 3y ago
As of right now they don't turn off 3rd party cookies when you enable this, so no. This objectively decreases your privacy.

charcircuit 3y ago

>in reality it does the opposite. Third party cookies can do everything the topics API can do and more. Third party cookies lets sites collect granular data about what exact site you on and any data they want from it. This API just gives them some topics which may even be a random chosen one and not a real one.

fh9302 3y ago
Can you give me a source that enabling the topics API disables third-party cookies? And once Chrome has phased out third-party cookies the topics API will strictly decrease my privacy, not increase it.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >Can you give me a source that enabling the topics API disables third-party cookies? I never claimed that. The current estimated timeline for phasing out 3rd party cookies as of last month is: 23Q4 Opt in testing for sites 24Q1 1% disabled 24Q2 fully disabled https://privacysandbox.com/open-web/ https://privacysandbox.com/open-web/ > And once Chrome has phased out third-party cookies the topics API will strictly decrease my privacy, not increase it. You are free to disable topics, sites, or even the entire system altogether. While it does decrease your privacy in return you can get more relevant ads. With 3rd party cookies if you disable them all you will break things even if those things are unrelated to ads.
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    Then bringing up third party cookies seems like a red herring. They're worse, but for example I have a pi-hole at home. This prompt will probably mislead my wife into accepting it as an improvement, while it will presumably undermine the tracking mitigations I've set up for her until I go fix it. This is unambiguously a privacy downgrade, regardless of what third party cookies may also be able to do.
    - charcircuit 3y ago