20 ms·

My friend Jake runs an analytics company. He's faced enormous challenges due to Google's "privacy" policies... Google is removing nearly all access to user dat

My friend Jake runs an analytics company. He's faced enormous challenges due to Google's "privacy" policies... Google is removing nearly all access to user data, they don't even like you looking at the user agent string (which issues a warning)... not to mention its impossible to know about search traffic and even referring urls. Meanwhile Google has access to all this data, so he tells me all this is just gaslighting so they can illicitly protect their monopoly on web data.

sensanaty 3y ago
No offence, but your friend Jake can go fuck himself. I have very little trust for Google and other megacorps like it, but I have even less trust for parasitic entities like Jake that just piggyback on top of Google's already horrid practices to extract wealth from, so you'll find no sympathy for Jake from me.
afavour 3y ago
> Meanwhile Google has access to all this data I’m loathe the defend Google but I don’t think this is the case. The replacement for user agent sniffing (client hints? I forget) is a universal thing and I don’t think Google has a secret back door tracking mechanism their ad network is able to use. It would certainly be a big story if they did.
- rhaway84773 3y ago
  Google’s ad network might not have access. But does Google have access? Because there are many ways Google can leverage this data without giving their ad network access. Privacy isn’t just about privacy from ads. There are all sorts of non ad related privacy abuses that can exist.
  - foobarian 3y ago
    A while ago now I booked a room on Expedia, which ended in me getting a confirmation email with an itinerary to my Gmail backed address. Lo and behold, few minutes later a CTA pops up on my Android phone offering to create a matching trip in Google's trip planning product. I'm sure it's all above board once you got into the fine print but it was not a pleasant experience.
- hotstickyballs 3y ago
  > I don’t think Google has a secret back door tracking mechanism their ad network is able to use. It would certainly be a big story if they did. Like Chrome??
- riku_iki 3y ago
  > I don’t think Google has a secret back door tracking mechanism their ad network is able to use. they have 80% population using search, youtube, storing browsing history etc while logged into google account, so they have lots of data about most of the people.
  - afavour 3y ago
    Right but that’s not a secret back door tracking mechanism. It’s a pretty blatant one! My point is that even this blatant logged in user tracking won’t be able to use user agent strings to track either.
    - riku_iki 3y ago
      yeah, no need some secret backdoor..
    - asddubs 3y ago
      you're the one who introduced the concept of it being secret, your quote just said they have access
      - afavour 3y ago
        > you're the one who introduced the concept of it being secret There is no publicly known method by which Google’s ad network is able to siphon extra data from Chrome users for targeting etc. If there is one, as OP’s friend suggested, definitionally it must be secret.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  You only need a backdoor if you do not also have a 6 lane highway to your users premises.
- notatoad 3y ago
  yes, client hints. google "has access to all this data" in exactly the same way any other website does. you request the information you need from the client, and the client can choose to provide it or not. clients provide it by default. hate on google all you want, but UA reduction is objectively a good thing. "my friend jacob wants to slurp up everything from the user-agent string on the first request" is not a good argument.
lukev 3y ago
This doesn't make sense. The browser provides the user agent as a header in HTTP requests. They can't detect if or how the server is using that information. Or do you mean your friend's product is a browser plugin? In which case, um, yes, I don't want it having access to any more information than it it needs to do it's job (and honestly, probably not even that.)
- re-thc 3y ago
  > The browser provides the user agent as a header in HTTP requests. They (Chrome) are taking it away [0]. [0]: https://developer.chrome.com/en/docs/privacy-sandbox/user-agent/ https://developer.chrome.com/en/docs/privacy-sandbox/user-ag...
  - infogulch 3y ago
    I'm all on board calling Google out for slowly implementing a user data protection racket, where Google owns all the data and everyone else is squeezed out and has to go through Google as The central data broker. At the same time this user agent reduction thing seems like a decent idea at first blush and good for users privacy.
    - dpkirchner 3y ago
      TBH I'm surprised the User-Agent header has survived as long as it has. Referer, too.
      - ravenstine 3y ago
        That header and Referer were always a mistake. I don't think The Google's motivation is pure, but I agree in principle. A lot of sites will break for people as a result, though. Maybe that's what The Google wants, though.
        satvikpendem 3y ago
        > Referer were always a mistake Yeah, it's even spelled wrong!
scarface_74 3y ago
Are we suppose to feel bad for your friend’s analytic company?
- swader999 3y ago
  We all suffer when competition is stifled.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    So it's bad when there's less competition for organized crime?
    - tough 3y ago
      That just means a more powerful mafia boss in town so probably yeah
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        We’ve seen time again that’s it’s better to have one strongman than a power vacuum with a lot of local warlords. If Google wipes out all of the other analytics companies, I can just not use Chrome.
        paulryanrogers 3y ago
        Until everything important in your life requires Chrome.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        No company targeting a U.S. population is going to ignore the 60% of the market that uses iOS.
        paulryanrogers 3y ago
dceddia 3y ago
Seeing this all go down, it feels like this is exactly Google’s master plan. 1. Roll out stuff they brand as “privacy respecting” that actually collects data for their own use. 2. Brand anything that would give competitors access to that data (third party cookies, user agent strings, etc) as a threat to user privacy. 3. Lock all of that stuff down so that nobody can access it (“we’re protecting you!”) 4. I don’t think we need the ???, it’s just straight to profit, via monopoly over the data. The brilliant/terrible thing about this is that third party cookie tracking is not great so it’s hard to set up a defensible argument where leaving things as they are is the better alternative. Apple and others have been waging a war on third party tracking for years now, and pushing public opinion in that direction, and it seems to me that Google is playing 4D chess here and using it against them (and frankly, the entire internet).
- bagels 3y ago
  Same playbook with apple vs Facebook
- jacquesm 3y ago
  This is why the worlds largest advertising company should not be fielding a search engine, a massive email platform and a browser as well.
  - dceddia 3y ago
    They sure have done a job at positioning themselves at the intersection of maximum control over the web.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    At least it anti-trust laws are hard at work! Glad it's not like the dark ages, when your operating shipped with a default browser that could be used to install any other browser you wanted.
- smashed 3y ago
  The solution is very easy for consumers looking for a real privacy solution: Use a browser that is not made by an advertising company. In other words, just drop chrome. It has never been easier to do, with Edge and Safari readily available on all major platforms and Firefox for those who prefer it, and of course the many other chromium forks that are around. There is no reason to be dependent on chrome today. There was a few years where it was overly dominant and very hard to avoid for compatibility and performance reasons, but that is just not true today. Personally I use Firefox on android and desktop and I don't miss chrome at all. I uninstalled (technically, disabled) it on mobile as Google widgets like to open links in it otherwise. I have chrome on the desktop as I work in software so I need to test compatibility with it, but that's it.
jacquesm 3y ago
That's exactly what it is. Google spends a fortune on lobbying Brussels to let the natives know that they have their best interests at heart. That's proof of the opposite as far as I'm concerned. Check out the ads on Zaventem airport (right next to Brussels) if you're ever passing through there, it's comical. Or check this video if you can't make it in person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0UevGxfXXY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0UevGxfXXY
wnc3141 3y ago
Such is the issue with any business connected to a single large and private infrastructure provider. Of course this is, in part, why we have anti-trust laws.
kyle-rb 3y ago
I just don't want Google adding extra tracking, I don't mind if they stop your friend Jake from tracking me.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Sounds great. Now we just need to figure out a way to stop Google instead of Google and numerous other surveillance capitalism corporations.
avs733 3y ago
Years ago I remember having a very similar reaction to many online platforms switch to https. It was pitched as protecting people from isp packet based ads but it always felt more motivated by locking the competition out of the data stream
judge2020 3y ago
Is there a write up examining the replacement (cohorts I guess) and showing how it is worse for user privacy?
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  It's arguably not, depending on how you slice "worse." Google's philosophy on this sort of thing has been pretty consistent for over a decade: they trust themselves with user data. It goes in a vault, it's very hard to access inappropriately, and they have some of the best security possible on the modern web. Practically speaking, yes, it's still a risk; if the data collections get breached, that's all the data. But they don't see themselves as more of a risk than anything else out there, so for them it's not philosophically inconsistent to claim other companies doing what they are doing should be considered a privacy threat. ... And honestly, I think there's a good case to be made that if you don't trust Google to respect your privacy and secure your data, You shouldn't be using Chrome period, because the organization you don't trust controls the source code of that browser.
  - judge2020 3y ago
    I guess my question is: how is Google getting that data now? Is FLoC or Topics beamed to Google ad preferences? Is it included in chrome sync?
makeitdouble 3y ago
> Meanwhile Google has access to all this data, so he tells me all this is just gaslighting so they can illicitly protect their monopoly on web data. To throw them in the same pit, they're taking a page from Apple's playbook: the privacy benefits for the user will justify any market effect from closing the platform and keeping all user data internals. Platform owner gets to protect the user from some of the abuse, while gaining a critical edge on the competition. In the current climate, I'm not sure there is any good angle to solve this, short of strong regulation limiting the advantage they get from doing these "privacy first" moves (basically find a way to forbid the platform owners from using their own users' data...I'm not holding my breath)
- eru 3y ago
  > In the current climate, I'm not sure there is any good angle to solve this, short of strong regulation limiting the advantage they get from doing these "privacy first" moves (basically find a way to forbid the platform owners from using their own users' data...I'm not holding my breath) Well, you could also look into removing some rules, in addition or instead of piling on new ones. Eg you could weaken intellectual property rights, to make it easier for upstart competitors to take on the established giants. Or you could make it easier for foreign competitors to enter local markets. (As an example, the US has become more protectionist of their tech markets. And the EU has a lot of red tape that's even harder to follow, if you are from outside the area.)
  - makeitdouble 3y ago
    > make it easier for upstart competitors to take on the established giants No specific regulation is stopping this. If anything, all the regulation that are getting added have as a goal to reduce the red tape around smaller players and limit the extent of the giant players' monopoly. If you were thinking about the rules forbidding dark patterns to suck client infos and accelerate growth, it would be a tough sell to be honest.
    - eru 3y ago
      > If anything, all the regulation that are getting added have as a goal to reduce the red tape around smaller players and limit the extent of the giant players' monopoly. No? Lots of regulation just adds red tape in general, and there are clear economics of scale in compliance: larger companies have proportionally an easier time affording the legal experts they need to make sure they are compliant.
Scoundreller 3y ago
> not to mention its impossible to know about search traffic and even referring urls. I think it was the migration to https everywhere that killed that. Not sure why it went down that way, or if Google was responsible. But yeah, when I ran a blog, I would look through the referrer URLs to see what people were actually searching for and write articles about that because it was obviously an untapped void in the market.

sensanaty 3y ago

No offence, but your friend Jake can go fuck himself. I have very little trust for Google and other megacorps like it, but I have even less trust for parasitic entities like Jake that just piggyback on top of Google's already horrid practices to extract wealth from, so you'll find no sympathy for Jake from me.

afavour 3y ago

> Meanwhile Google has access to all this data I’m loathe the defend Google but I don’t think this is the case. The replacement for user agent sniffing (client hints? I forget) is a universal thing and I don’t think Google has a secret back door tracking mechanism their ad network is able to use. It would certainly be a big story if they did.

rhaway84773 3y ago
Google’s ad network might not have access. But does Google have access? Because there are many ways Google can leverage this data without giving their ad network access. Privacy isn’t just about privacy from ads. There are all sorts of non ad related privacy abuses that can exist.
- foobarian 3y ago
  A while ago now I booked a room on Expedia, which ended in me getting a confirmation email with an itinerary to my Gmail backed address. Lo and behold, few minutes later a CTA pops up on my Android phone offering to create a matching trip in Google's trip planning product. I'm sure it's all above board once you got into the fine print but it was not a pleasant experience.
hotstickyballs 3y ago
> I don’t think Google has a secret back door tracking mechanism their ad network is able to use. It would certainly be a big story if they did. Like Chrome??
riku_iki 3y ago
> I don’t think Google has a secret back door tracking mechanism their ad network is able to use. they have 80% population using search, youtube, storing browsing history etc while logged into google account, so they have lots of data about most of the people.
- afavour 3y ago
  Right but that’s not a secret back door tracking mechanism. It’s a pretty blatant one! My point is that even this blatant logged in user tracking won’t be able to use user agent strings to track either.
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    yeah, no need some secret backdoor..
  - asddubs 3y ago
    you're the one who introduced the concept of it being secret, your quote just said they have access
    - afavour 3y ago
      > you're the one who introduced the concept of it being secret There is no publicly known method by which Google’s ad network is able to siphon extra data from Chrome users for targeting etc. If there is one, as OP’s friend suggested, definitionally it must be secret.
jacquesm 3y ago
You only need a backdoor if you do not also have a 6 lane highway to your users premises.
notatoad 3y ago
yes, client hints. google "has access to all this data" in exactly the same way any other website does. you request the information you need from the client, and the client can choose to provide it or not. clients provide it by default. hate on google all you want, but UA reduction is objectively a good thing. "my friend jacob wants to slurp up everything from the user-agent string on the first request" is not a good argument.

lukev 3y ago

This doesn't make sense. The browser provides the user agent as a header in HTTP requests. They can't detect if or how the server is using that information. Or do you mean your friend's product is a browser plugin? In which case, um, yes, I don't want it having access to any more information than it it needs to do it's job (and honestly, probably not even that.)

re-thc 3y ago
> The browser provides the user agent as a header in HTTP requests. They (Chrome) are taking it away [0]. [0]: https://developer.chrome.com/en/docs/privacy-sandbox/user-agent/ https://developer.chrome.com/en/docs/privacy-sandbox/user-ag...
- infogulch 3y ago
  I'm all on board calling Google out for slowly implementing a user data protection racket, where Google owns all the data and everyone else is squeezed out and has to go through Google as The central data broker. At the same time this user agent reduction thing seems like a decent idea at first blush and good for users privacy.
  - dpkirchner 3y ago
    TBH I'm surprised the User-Agent header has survived as long as it has. Referer, too.
    - ravenstine 3y ago
      That header and Referer were always a mistake. I don't think The Google's motivation is pure, but I agree in principle. A lot of sites will break for people as a result, though. Maybe that's what The Google wants, though.
      - satvikpendem 3y ago
        > Referer were always a mistake Yeah, it's even spelled wrong!

scarface_74 3y ago

Are we suppose to feel bad for your friend’s analytic company?

swader999 3y ago
We all suffer when competition is stifled.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  So it's bad when there's less competition for organized crime?
  - tough 3y ago
    That just means a more powerful mafia boss in town so probably yeah
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      We’ve seen time again that’s it’s better to have one strongman than a power vacuum with a lot of local warlords. If Google wipes out all of the other analytics companies, I can just not use Chrome.
      - paulryanrogers 3y ago
        Until everything important in your life requires Chrome.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        No company targeting a U.S. population is going to ignore the 60% of the market that uses iOS.
        paulryanrogers 3y ago

dceddia 3y ago

Seeing this all go down, it feels like this is exactly Google’s master plan. 1. Roll out stuff they brand as “privacy respecting” that actually collects data for their own use. 2. Brand anything that would give competitors access to that data (third party cookies, user agent strings, etc) as a threat to user privacy. 3. Lock all of that stuff down so that nobody can access it (“we’re protecting you!”) 4. I don’t think we need the ???, it’s just straight to profit, via monopoly over the data. The brilliant/terrible thing about this is that third party cookie tracking is not great so it’s hard to set up a defensible argument where leaving things as they are is the better alternative. Apple and others have been waging a war on third party tracking for years now, and pushing public opinion in that direction, and it seems to me that Google is playing 4D chess here and using it against them (and frankly, the entire internet).

bagels 3y ago
Same playbook with apple vs Facebook
jacquesm 3y ago
This is why the worlds largest advertising company should not be fielding a search engine, a massive email platform and a browser as well.
- dceddia 3y ago
  They sure have done a job at positioning themselves at the intersection of maximum control over the web.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  At least it anti-trust laws are hard at work! Glad it's not like the dark ages, when your operating shipped with a default browser that could be used to install any other browser you wanted.
smashed 3y ago
The solution is very easy for consumers looking for a real privacy solution: Use a browser that is not made by an advertising company. In other words, just drop chrome. It has never been easier to do, with Edge and Safari readily available on all major platforms and Firefox for those who prefer it, and of course the many other chromium forks that are around. There is no reason to be dependent on chrome today. There was a few years where it was overly dominant and very hard to avoid for compatibility and performance reasons, but that is just not true today. Personally I use Firefox on android and desktop and I don't miss chrome at all. I uninstalled (technically, disabled) it on mobile as Google widgets like to open links in it otherwise. I have chrome on the desktop as I work in software so I need to test compatibility with it, but that's it.

jacquesm 3y ago

That's exactly what it is. Google spends a fortune on lobbying Brussels to let the natives know that they have their best interests at heart. That's proof of the opposite as far as I'm concerned. Check out the ads on Zaventem airport (right next to Brussels) if you're ever passing through there, it's comical. Or check this video if you can't make it in person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0UevGxfXXY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0UevGxfXXY

wnc3141 3y ago

Such is the issue with any business connected to a single large and private infrastructure provider. Of course this is, in part, why we have anti-trust laws.

kyle-rb 3y ago

I just don't want Google adding extra tracking, I don't mind if they stop your friend Jake from tracking me.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

Sounds great. Now we just need to figure out a way to stop Google instead of Google and numerous other surveillance capitalism corporations.

avs733 3y ago

Years ago I remember having a very similar reaction to many online platforms switch to https. It was pitched as protecting people from isp packet based ads but it always felt more motivated by locking the competition out of the data stream

judge2020 3y ago

Is there a write up examining the replacement (cohorts I guess) and showing how it is worse for user privacy?

shadowgovt 3y ago
It's arguably not, depending on how you slice "worse." Google's philosophy on this sort of thing has been pretty consistent for over a decade: they trust themselves with user data. It goes in a vault, it's very hard to access inappropriately, and they have some of the best security possible on the modern web. Practically speaking, yes, it's still a risk; if the data collections get breached, that's all the data. But they don't see themselves as more of a risk than anything else out there, so for them it's not philosophically inconsistent to claim other companies doing what they are doing should be considered a privacy threat. ... And honestly, I think there's a good case to be made that if you don't trust Google to respect your privacy and secure your data, You shouldn't be using Chrome period, because the organization you don't trust controls the source code of that browser.
- judge2020 3y ago
  I guess my question is: how is Google getting that data now? Is FLoC or Topics beamed to Google ad preferences? Is it included in chrome sync?

makeitdouble 3y ago

> Meanwhile Google has access to all this data, so he tells me all this is just gaslighting so they can illicitly protect their monopoly on web data. To throw them in the same pit, they're taking a page from Apple's playbook: the privacy benefits for the user will justify any market effect from closing the platform and keeping all user data internals. Platform owner gets to protect the user from some of the abuse, while gaining a critical edge on the competition. In the current climate, I'm not sure there is any good angle to solve this, short of strong regulation limiting the advantage they get from doing these "privacy first" moves (basically find a way to forbid the platform owners from using their own users' data...I'm not holding my breath)

eru 3y ago
> In the current climate, I'm not sure there is any good angle to solve this, short of strong regulation limiting the advantage they get from doing these "privacy first" moves (basically find a way to forbid the platform owners from using their own users' data...I'm not holding my breath) Well, you could also look into removing some rules, in addition or instead of piling on new ones. Eg you could weaken intellectual property rights, to make it easier for upstart competitors to take on the established giants. Or you could make it easier for foreign competitors to enter local markets. (As an example, the US has become more protectionist of their tech markets. And the EU has a lot of red tape that's even harder to follow, if you are from outside the area.)
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  > make it easier for upstart competitors to take on the established giants No specific regulation is stopping this. If anything, all the regulation that are getting added have as a goal to reduce the red tape around smaller players and limit the extent of the giant players' monopoly. If you were thinking about the rules forbidding dark patterns to suck client infos and accelerate growth, it would be a tough sell to be honest.
  - eru 3y ago
    > If anything, all the regulation that are getting added have as a goal to reduce the red tape around smaller players and limit the extent of the giant players' monopoly. No? Lots of regulation just adds red tape in general, and there are clear economics of scale in compliance: larger companies have proportionally an easier time affording the legal experts they need to make sure they are compliant.

Scoundreller 3y ago

> not to mention its impossible to know about search traffic and even referring urls. I think it was the migration to https everywhere that killed that. Not sure why it went down that way, or if Google was responsible. But yeah, when I ran a blog, I would look through the referrer URLs to see what people were actually searching for and write articles about that because it was obviously an untapped void in the market.