12 ms·

How to turn off Google's "privacy sandbox" ad tracking, and why you should

Razengan 3y ago
I recently noticed that even when using a VPN to another country and in Private Browsing in Safari and with Location turned off, Google Search still shows results based on my location!!?
- resolutebat 3y ago
  Your IP address can be used by any website you connect to to figure out a rough location.
- firecall 3y ago
  You leak all sorts of information that can be used to fingerprint you! https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
awinter-py 3y ago
as an infrequent chrome user I got the 'your ad privacy has been enhanced' page when I started it up it didn't feel like my ad privacy had been enhanced
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >it didn't feel like my ad privacy had been enhanced You're using the product of a company who's main business is selling ads, what privacy are you expecting to get? That's like using McDonald's & Coca-Cola for the school cafeteria catering service and expecting to get a heathy and nutritious meal.
  - m463 3y ago
    Our enhanced sandwiches have 1/3 the lead content as before.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
account-5 3y ago
Glad I'm a Firefox user.
- unobatbayar 3y ago
  That helps, but It's still meaningless if your machine has Intel or AMD CPUs running Windows or macOS.
  - account-5 3y ago
    In that case I'm glad to say I'm a happy MX Linux user. I get your point about the OSs especially windows, but what privacy issues are there running intel/amd CPUs?
    - unobatbayar 3y ago
      Intel/AMD CPUs have Intel Management Engine/Platform Security Processor: Having full access to your computer's memory, display, network, and all input devices.
      - account-5 3y ago
        But how would running Linux stop that?
  - justoreply 3y ago
    I have an Intel Mac, running Firefox. What is the point?
clouddrover 3y ago
It's better not to use Chrome in the first place. There's no point staying in an abusive relationship. Use Firefox instead. uBlock Origin works best in Firefox: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
- mderazon 3y ago
  Only thing keeping me out of using Firefox is the lack of multiple profile (one for work and one for personal). I know containers exist, it's not the same (they share extensions for example). It has been requested for many years but they think containers is the way to go which I disagree (or at least think it's not enough)
  - clouddrover 3y ago
    Multiple profiles in Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-remove-switch-firefox-profiles https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-...
    - mderazon 3y ago
      I know about this actually, but it's tucked in where none can find it and not really the same visibility as Chrome profiles and easily switchable
      - GeoAtreides 3y ago
        so... then what's keeping you from switching? the feature exists, you can use it right now -- just create two shortcuts on the desktop, one for personal, one for work. they can even run at the same time!
      - delcaran 3y ago
        Take a look at Firefox Profile Switcher: https://github.com/null-dev/firefox-profile-switcher https://github.com/null-dev/firefox-profile-switcher AFAIK it offers the same functionalities of Chrome profiles.
bbor 3y ago
The idea is that instead of the dozens of third-party cookies placed on websites by different advertisers and tracking companies, Google itself will track your interests in the browser itself, controlling even more of the advertising ecosystem than it already does. Google calls this “enhanced ad privacy,” perhaps leaning into the idea that starting in 2024 they plan to “phase out” the third-party cookies that many advertisers currently use to track people. But the company will still gobble up your browsing habits to serve you ads, preserving its bottom line in a world where competition on privacy is pushing it to phase out third-party cookies. Assuming “phase out display / personalized advertising completely” isn’t on the docket, which tbh we should be looking to the state to enforce that rule before we look to the (now public) corporation that invented the field, what else would people here rather them do? If I click around the EFF do they have some more sound/explicit arguments somewhere on that question?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dathery 3y ago
  I get why Chrome has to prioritize the things it does, but this kind of reasoning feels so backwards to me. I'm sorry that blocking cross-site tracking makes it harder for ad companies to make money, but that's just not my concern. My browser is supposed to act in _my_ interests. It's the _user_ agent, after all. I'm not going to give any sympathy to the company that built the internet into the ad-supported hellscape that it is when they now use their browser monopoly to try to protect their business model.
  - bbor 3y ago
    I guess my point is: if you’re mad at this but still support capitalism you’re being inconsistent. The only possible fix for this is government action, and capitalism has led to regulatory capture which means we get basically 0 government action EDIT: this is disregarding the “everyone boycott display ads companies and we’ll kill the industry with the invisible hand of the market” but I don’t have a ton of faith in that one
userbinator 3y ago
Google referring to any of this as “privacy” is deceiving. It's pure doublespeak. Privacy is surveillance.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  It is better for privacy than third party cookies which they are getting rid of.
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago
    So get rid of third-party cookies and also don't add this abomination as a replacement. (Obvious response: "there are legal reasons why we can't do that, it'd be viewed as anticompetitive". Obvious response to the obvious response: "stop being simultaneously an ad company and a browser vendor and it would no longer be anticompetitive".)
  - handsclean 3y ago
    “You’ve got to pay us for protection.” “From what?” “From what we’re gonna do to you if you don’t pay us for protection.”
  - dangus 3y ago
    Getting rid of third party cookies is basically the status quo. IIRC if you use Safari or Firefox with default settings, third-party cookies are turned off. This feature compared to that status quo is worse for privacy. I think this might be the first time I’ve seen something that promises enhanced privacy instead doing directly the opposite, outside of the realm of malware and scam apps. Imagine if there was a “save space on your hard drive” checkbox that used more storage space when it was checked. That’s what this is.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      As mentioned by a sibling comment Google will be sued for antitrust reasons if they remove third party cookies as some other ad businesses rely on them. So in order to remove third party cookies Google must provide an alternative for other advertisers to use instead.
LordDragonfang 3y ago
I know I appear to be in the minority here, but I trust google to categorize and share my "interests" more than I do random websites (plus, I use enough Google products that they have that info anyway), and I prefer targeted ads to totally irrelevant ones (like the garbage ads on twitter). I'll be leaving this on, since it doesn't have any tangible negative impact.
- midasuni 3y ago
  Based on the rubbish ads I get on YouTube on my phone I don’t think google are in any place to know what my interest even are. 5 years ago I used to get adverts for things like films which I would often watch the whole way through. Today I get adverts for phones and Chromebook. It’s like google are unable to sell adverts that actually target me and instead just throw their own rubbish I have no interest in, and even if I did they are not using the right features (I think they said that a Chromebook can run something by adobe? A company I haven’t run any tools from for about 20 years). I guess they don’t have much data on me as I don’t do google other than YT and sometimes maps on the desktop, but the adverts aren’t even based on the types of youtube videos I watch, they feel like very generic adverts for products I don’t want.
  - burningChrome 3y ago
    >> I guess they don’t have much data on me I would consider this a good thing. My wife and I were talking the other night at a friends who have an Alexa in their kitchen. We were talking about taking a ski trip out West to Colorado or Utah. We get the car to leave. She pops open her Facebook feed and wouldn't you know? She's getting ads for resorts in. . .wait for it. . . .Colorado and Utah along with the two places were thinking of going. I was creeped TF out because this wasn't the first time its happened and the other two times, we weren't near a listening device like an Alexa and similar things have happened. If they don't know your preferences, then you're doing something right.
    - kortilla 3y ago
      Someone in the group searched something. Alexa doesn’t share with Facebook even if it did listen for advertising interests. It’s much more benign, but Facebook definitely does advertise things to a whole group it guesses (usually correctly) were located together.
urbandw311er 3y ago
If you care at all about privacy and the future of a free Internet, this really should be that watershed moment that makes you take your head out of the sand. Seriously. Uninstall Chrome today and switch to something else. It’s only if enough people do it that they lose their grip and influence.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  What does a "free" internet look like without ads? Serious question, because right now ads pay for a lot. Ads are why we have reddit and twitter - two sites that I think a lot of people like. Ads are why I could run a wordpress blog as a young student. If you assume "the current internet is good, but we want to improve privacy" what Google is doing makes sense. Advertisers can still say "ok that person likes cars I'll show them cars" but they can't actually track that person or attribute information to them other than "likes cars".
  - BanazirGalbasi 3y ago
    They're not talking about free as in no monetary cost, they're talking about free as in freedom. Google has enough market share that they can just make their own standards and everyone else just follows. I have repeatedly come across sites that don't even test on Firefox because Chrome is just the default now. If you don't want to be cornered into a single option that invades your privacy, now is the time to pay attention.
    - insanitybit 3y ago
      I know what they're saying. I'm asking what the internet is going to look like when there's no advertising, and I'm pointing out what advertising currently allows for. > Google has enough market share that they can just make their own standards and everyone else just follows What does that have to do with privacy or advertising? > invades your privacy I'm comfortable with a company seeing "<random id> likes cars" tbh
      - 3y ago
throwawa14223 3y ago
I'm still hoping there will exist an extension to poison it with random categories and random measurement.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  There already is a 5% chance that you will send a random category to a site for an epoch.
  - throwawa14223 3y ago
    The fact that Google picked 5% leads me to believe it isn't enough randomness.
  - ericpauley 3y ago
    Unfortunately the 5% noise can be easily bypassed by advertisers: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.03825.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.03825.pdf
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- burningChrome 3y ago
  You can write a bot in Python or any of the free versions of RPA software to make random searches and go to random sites to poison the data that they get. Its not that easy, but poisoning the data can be done.
cebert 3y ago
> “If you just clicked the big blue button that said “Got it” to make the pop-up go away, you opted yourself in.” The screenshots in the article clearly illustrate a concerning trend: users are often subtly coerced into opting into certain features or settings without full awareness. This usually happens when they hurriedly click a prominent button like 'Got it' just to dismiss an annoying pop-up. It highlights a significant problem in UX where clarity and consent are traded for corporate gain. We need for more robust laws governing terms of service agreements, transparent pricing during sign-up processes, and the design of preference dialogs to ensure they are user-friendly and transparent. This is extremely user hostile.
- Moru 3y ago
  It's also not legal in GDPR lands. It has to be easy to understand, the default have to be to opt out, and you are not allowed to block usage for people that opted out. Oh, and the message has to be short. I have seen "a sentence or two" mentioned as suggestion.
  - cebert 3y ago
    I think we almost always need to assume that dialogs like this are user hostile. The action your brian immediately wants to take is likely not the right action to take.
  - madeofpalk 3y ago
    Within Europe you get a different dialog box that has more explicit buttons, removing any sort of plausible deniability for Google here. Looks like this https://blog.incogni.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/enhanced-ad-privacy-popup.png https://blog.incogni.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/enhanced...
    - resoluteteeth 3y ago
      Fascinating. This really proves that Google knows that the version it's using elsewhere is a dark pattern.
mderazon 3y ago
When I first saw this I was really confused about what to do as it seemed I was turning privacy off by turning these off. The use of the term privacy with this feature is confusing
- ddxv 3y ago
  As someone who works in adte h my opinion this was started by Apple's 'privacy' features which just means you opt in to apple tracking everything instead of other companies. The issue I have there is that Apple is the company that knows your real name. They used this to become a late monopoly in iOS advertising. Google took note and is now building and offering more "privacy tools".
  - yellow_postit 3y ago
    Exactly this is an excuse to centralize more power to Google. Of course they’d rather not take on the work, but if regulators force them to end up in a position where they control even more data? Well, they are begrudgingly happy to oblige.
unobatbayar 3y ago
Is it truly turned off after taking these measures? Is there anything we can do to verify that Google's Privacy Sandbox is not actively tracking us? It's reminiscent of turning off Bluetooth and WiFi in the Settings on iPhones, only to find out they still emit radio waves.
- agwa 3y ago
  A few ways you could verify it's off: 1. Try using the Privacy Sandbox APIs on your own site to confirm they don't work. 2. Examine your Chrome profile to make sure it doesn't contain ad topics or ad measurement data. 3. Sniff network traffic to ensure Chrome is not sending anything sensitive to Google (using SSLKEYLOGFILE so you can decrypt HTTPS connections). EFF's article ought to be clearer that all of the privacy sandbox logic happens on your own device rather than Google servers.
hnburnsy 3y ago
Its BS that Google makes these settings per browser and not per account, so you have to make these changes on each computer\phone you use. Anyone know if these settings apply to a private browser session.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  On the flip side, isn't the "track and categorize" data also per-browser? If so, then it seems like a natural extension. The opposite--tying it to a persistent widespread account--seems creepier overall.
fumar 3y ago
Third party cookies were used without your opt in consent to create profiles based on your behavior by companies like LiveRamp or Oracle. Apple and Google have eliminated or will eliminate the covert tracking based on 3p cookies and mobile ad ids. I don’t support dark UI patterns but privacy sandbox and Apple AppTrackingTransparency hurt advertisers, publishers, and ad platforms but improve consumers privacy. It is not a black and white situation given the monopolistic size of these two tech titans but their privacy solutions are based on aggregated and locally stored data vs cloud based covert 1:1 identifiers - which you couldn’t control.
skybrian 3y ago
I checked “ad topics” (I do this occasionally) and there are more topics, but they are still really generic and seem entirely harmless in my case. Yes, it’s personalization, but only barely. On the other hand, website domain names are often very specialized, which means that “Site suggested ads” can be very specific. These are the ads that follow you around. So far I’ve just deleted one that annoyed me. It seems pretty controllable.
Zuiii 3y ago
> almost 500 advertising categories Wait. Doesn't that just mean that google collects 500 bits of information about you? How is that not considered an ID? I don't understand.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  The browser keeps track of he top 5 categories from this list of these 629 topics. https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/topics/blob/main/taxonomy_v2.md https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/topics/blob/main/... Other than when it returns a random topic, the browser only reveals a topic to a site if that site has observed the user on a site with that topic before. For an epoch a site can only get at most 1 topic. The browser will return topics for up to the last 3 epochs (the site only gets data for the epochs it has called the API in)
- cpeterso 3y ago
  I believe tropic interest is calculated locally by the (Google) browser, though it might be repeatable on the Google server side for users syncing their browsing history to a Google account. The Topics API itself only returns up to three topic IDs to websites, not 500 bits for all topics. But that still gives trackers up to 500 * 499 * 498 (124,251,000) topic combinations that can be paired with other fingerprintable user information like GeoIP, language, browser version, and operating system.
mediumsmart 3y ago
Just in case anyone missed the memo Google is an advertising company that only makes money with the shitty part of the internet which is why that part is expanding. The chrome plated gmail cohorts have been educated to read for free and publish for compensation. They need a shitty internet to thrive, post and "make something awesome" in. The shitty internet is doing fine and raising the participants it needs. The free internet is indestructible and made by people who care. And of course it belongs to the minority.
tictacttoe 3y ago
My two cents is that while browser tracking matters, people should also be conscious of not giving away their email and cell number when signing up for accounts or making purchases. Every time you do this, the company sells the data to Google and Meta and it gets joined together on those primary keys, creating a comprehensive profile of your interests. Use Apple’s “Hide my email” and I also like the company “my pseudo” which creates throw away e-mails and cell numbers. It’s silly to be all up tight about browser tracking, but then register everywhere with your real personal information.
- trogdor 3y ago
  I hear this a lot, but I have never understood the details. How is the data sold to Google? What program are these websites participating in, where Google is paying them for customer email addresses, phone numbers, and purchase history?
  - tictacttoe 3y ago
    From ChatGPT, Yes, Google and Meta (the parent company of Facebook) do allow businesses to upload customer email addresses and phone numbers for advertising purposes, under specific conditions. This process is part of what's known as "Custom Audiences." 1. *Google Customer Match:* Google allows businesses to upload a list of email addresses through their Google Ads service. This feature, known as Customer Match, lets advertisers target or retarget their advertisements to these customers across Google products like Search, Shopping, YouTube, and Gmail. Businesses must comply with Google's policies and data protection laws. 2. *Meta Custom Audiences:* Similarly, Meta (Facebook) offers a feature called Custom Audiences, where businesses can upload lists of emails or phone numbers. These are then used to match users on Facebook, Instagram, and other platforms in Meta's network for targeted advertising. The data is hashed to protect user privacy, and the businesses must have the right to use this data. Both companies emphasize privacy and the necessity for businesses to have obtained the data lawfully and with the user's consent. Users also have tools at their disposal to control their ad preferences and understand why they are seeing certain ads. It's a balance between effective targeted advertising and user privacy, governed by both internal policies and external regulations like GDPR and CCPA. Google and Meta are building social graphs across this uploaded information.
awinter-py 3y ago
from a web standards perpsective, how can a different browser comply with this new spec? by sending telemetry to google? or like to firefox?

I recently noticed that even when using a VPN to another country and in Private Browsing in Safari and with Location turned off, Google Search still shows results based on my location!!?

resolutebat 3y ago
Your IP address can be used by any website you connect to to figure out a rough location.
firecall 3y ago
You leak all sorts of information that can be used to fingerprint you! https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/

awinter-py 3y ago

as an infrequent chrome user I got the 'your ad privacy has been enhanced' page when I started it up it didn't feel like my ad privacy had been enhanced

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>it didn't feel like my ad privacy had been enhanced You're using the product of a company who's main business is selling ads, what privacy are you expecting to get? That's like using McDonald's & Coca-Cola for the school cafeteria catering service and expecting to get a heathy and nutritious meal.
- m463 3y ago
  Our enhanced sandwiches have 1/3 the lead content as before.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

account-5 3y ago

Glad I'm a Firefox user.

unobatbayar 3y ago
That helps, but It's still meaningless if your machine has Intel or AMD CPUs running Windows or macOS.
- account-5 3y ago
  In that case I'm glad to say I'm a happy MX Linux user. I get your point about the OSs especially windows, but what privacy issues are there running intel/amd CPUs?
  - unobatbayar 3y ago
    Intel/AMD CPUs have Intel Management Engine/Platform Security Processor: Having full access to your computer's memory, display, network, and all input devices.
    - account-5 3y ago
      But how would running Linux stop that?
- justoreply 3y ago
  I have an Intel Mac, running Firefox. What is the point?

clouddrover 3y ago

It's better not to use Chrome in the first place. There's no point staying in an abusive relationship. Use Firefox instead. uBlock Origin works best in Firefox: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

mderazon 3y ago
Only thing keeping me out of using Firefox is the lack of multiple profile (one for work and one for personal). I know containers exist, it's not the same (they share extensions for example). It has been requested for many years but they think containers is the way to go which I disagree (or at least think it's not enough)
- clouddrover 3y ago
  Multiple profiles in Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-remove-switch-firefox-profiles https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-...
  - mderazon 3y ago
    I know about this actually, but it's tucked in where none can find it and not really the same visibility as Chrome profiles and easily switchable
    - GeoAtreides 3y ago
      so... then what's keeping you from switching? the feature exists, you can use it right now -- just create two shortcuts on the desktop, one for personal, one for work. they can even run at the same time!
    - delcaran 3y ago
      Take a look at Firefox Profile Switcher: https://github.com/null-dev/firefox-profile-switcher https://github.com/null-dev/firefox-profile-switcher AFAIK it offers the same functionalities of Chrome profiles.

bbor 3y ago

The idea is that instead of the dozens of third-party cookies placed on websites by different advertisers and tracking companies, Google itself will track your interests in the browser itself, controlling even more of the advertising ecosystem than it already does. Google calls this “enhanced ad privacy,” perhaps leaning into the idea that starting in 2024 they plan to “phase out” the third-party cookies that many advertisers currently use to track people. But the company will still gobble up your browsing habits to serve you ads, preserving its bottom line in a world where competition on privacy is pushing it to phase out third-party cookies. Assuming “phase out display / personalized advertising completely” isn’t on the docket, which tbh we should be looking to the state to enforce that rule before we look to the (now public) corporation that invented the field, what else would people here rather them do? If I click around the EFF do they have some more sound/explicit arguments somewhere on that question?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dathery 3y ago
I get why Chrome has to prioritize the things it does, but this kind of reasoning feels so backwards to me. I'm sorry that blocking cross-site tracking makes it harder for ad companies to make money, but that's just not my concern. My browser is supposed to act in _my_ interests. It's the _user_ agent, after all. I'm not going to give any sympathy to the company that built the internet into the ad-supported hellscape that it is when they now use their browser monopoly to try to protect their business model.
- bbor 3y ago
  I guess my point is: if you’re mad at this but still support capitalism you’re being inconsistent. The only possible fix for this is government action, and capitalism has led to regulatory capture which means we get basically 0 government action EDIT: this is disregarding the “everyone boycott display ads companies and we’ll kill the industry with the invisible hand of the market” but I don’t have a ton of faith in that one

userbinator 3y ago

Google referring to any of this as “privacy” is deceiving. It's pure doublespeak. Privacy is surveillance.

charcircuit 3y ago
It is better for privacy than third party cookies which they are getting rid of.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  So get rid of third-party cookies and also don't add this abomination as a replacement. (Obvious response: "there are legal reasons why we can't do that, it'd be viewed as anticompetitive". Obvious response to the obvious response: "stop being simultaneously an ad company and a browser vendor and it would no longer be anticompetitive".)
- handsclean 3y ago
  “You’ve got to pay us for protection.” “From what?” “From what we’re gonna do to you if you don’t pay us for protection.”
- dangus 3y ago
  Getting rid of third party cookies is basically the status quo. IIRC if you use Safari or Firefox with default settings, third-party cookies are turned off. This feature compared to that status quo is worse for privacy. I think this might be the first time I’ve seen something that promises enhanced privacy instead doing directly the opposite, outside of the realm of malware and scam apps. Imagine if there was a “save space on your hard drive” checkbox that used more storage space when it was checked. That’s what this is.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    As mentioned by a sibling comment Google will be sued for antitrust reasons if they remove third party cookies as some other ad businesses rely on them. So in order to remove third party cookies Google must provide an alternative for other advertisers to use instead.

LordDragonfang 3y ago

I know I appear to be in the minority here, but I trust google to categorize and share my "interests" more than I do random websites (plus, I use enough Google products that they have that info anyway), and I prefer targeted ads to totally irrelevant ones (like the garbage ads on twitter). I'll be leaving this on, since it doesn't have any tangible negative impact.

midasuni 3y ago
Based on the rubbish ads I get on YouTube on my phone I don’t think google are in any place to know what my interest even are. 5 years ago I used to get adverts for things like films which I would often watch the whole way through. Today I get adverts for phones and Chromebook. It’s like google are unable to sell adverts that actually target me and instead just throw their own rubbish I have no interest in, and even if I did they are not using the right features (I think they said that a Chromebook can run something by adobe? A company I haven’t run any tools from for about 20 years). I guess they don’t have much data on me as I don’t do google other than YT and sometimes maps on the desktop, but the adverts aren’t even based on the types of youtube videos I watch, they feel like very generic adverts for products I don’t want.
- burningChrome 3y ago
  >> I guess they don’t have much data on me I would consider this a good thing. My wife and I were talking the other night at a friends who have an Alexa in their kitchen. We were talking about taking a ski trip out West to Colorado or Utah. We get the car to leave. She pops open her Facebook feed and wouldn't you know? She's getting ads for resorts in. . .wait for it. . . .Colorado and Utah along with the two places were thinking of going. I was creeped TF out because this wasn't the first time its happened and the other two times, we weren't near a listening device like an Alexa and similar things have happened. If they don't know your preferences, then you're doing something right.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    Someone in the group searched something. Alexa doesn’t share with Facebook even if it did listen for advertising interests. It’s much more benign, but Facebook definitely does advertise things to a whole group it guesses (usually correctly) were located together.

urbandw311er 3y ago

If you care at all about privacy and the future of a free Internet, this really should be that watershed moment that makes you take your head out of the sand. Seriously. Uninstall Chrome today and switch to something else. It’s only if enough people do it that they lose their grip and influence.

insanitybit 3y ago
What does a "free" internet look like without ads? Serious question, because right now ads pay for a lot. Ads are why we have reddit and twitter - two sites that I think a lot of people like. Ads are why I could run a wordpress blog as a young student. If you assume "the current internet is good, but we want to improve privacy" what Google is doing makes sense. Advertisers can still say "ok that person likes cars I'll show them cars" but they can't actually track that person or attribute information to them other than "likes cars".
- BanazirGalbasi 3y ago
  They're not talking about free as in no monetary cost, they're talking about free as in freedom. Google has enough market share that they can just make their own standards and everyone else just follows. I have repeatedly come across sites that don't even test on Firefox because Chrome is just the default now. If you don't want to be cornered into a single option that invades your privacy, now is the time to pay attention.
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    I know what they're saying. I'm asking what the internet is going to look like when there's no advertising, and I'm pointing out what advertising currently allows for. > Google has enough market share that they can just make their own standards and everyone else just follows What does that have to do with privacy or advertising? > invades your privacy I'm comfortable with a company seeing "<random id> likes cars" tbh
    - 3y ago

throwawa14223 3y ago

I'm still hoping there will exist an extension to poison it with random categories and random measurement.

charcircuit 3y ago
There already is a 5% chance that you will send a random category to a site for an epoch.
- throwawa14223 3y ago
  The fact that Google picked 5% leads me to believe it isn't enough randomness.
- ericpauley 3y ago
  Unfortunately the 5% noise can be easily bypassed by advertisers: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.03825.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.03825.pdf
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
burningChrome 3y ago
You can write a bot in Python or any of the free versions of RPA software to make random searches and go to random sites to poison the data that they get. Its not that easy, but poisoning the data can be done.

cebert 3y ago

> “If you just clicked the big blue button that said “Got it” to make the pop-up go away, you opted yourself in.” The screenshots in the article clearly illustrate a concerning trend: users are often subtly coerced into opting into certain features or settings without full awareness. This usually happens when they hurriedly click a prominent button like 'Got it' just to dismiss an annoying pop-up. It highlights a significant problem in UX where clarity and consent are traded for corporate gain. We need for more robust laws governing terms of service agreements, transparent pricing during sign-up processes, and the design of preference dialogs to ensure they are user-friendly and transparent. This is extremely user hostile.

Moru 3y ago
It's also not legal in GDPR lands. It has to be easy to understand, the default have to be to opt out, and you are not allowed to block usage for people that opted out. Oh, and the message has to be short. I have seen "a sentence or two" mentioned as suggestion.
- cebert 3y ago
  I think we almost always need to assume that dialogs like this are user hostile. The action your brian immediately wants to take is likely not the right action to take.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  Within Europe you get a different dialog box that has more explicit buttons, removing any sort of plausible deniability for Google here. Looks like this https://blog.incogni.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/enhanced-ad-privacy-popup.png https://blog.incogni.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/enhanced...
  - resoluteteeth 3y ago
    Fascinating. This really proves that Google knows that the version it's using elsewhere is a dark pattern.

mderazon 3y ago

When I first saw this I was really confused about what to do as it seemed I was turning privacy off by turning these off. The use of the term privacy with this feature is confusing

ddxv 3y ago
As someone who works in adte h my opinion this was started by Apple's 'privacy' features which just means you opt in to apple tracking everything instead of other companies. The issue I have there is that Apple is the company that knows your real name. They used this to become a late monopoly in iOS advertising. Google took note and is now building and offering more "privacy tools".
- yellow_postit 3y ago
  Exactly this is an excuse to centralize more power to Google. Of course they’d rather not take on the work, but if regulators force them to end up in a position where they control even more data? Well, they are begrudgingly happy to oblige.

unobatbayar 3y ago

Is it truly turned off after taking these measures? Is there anything we can do to verify that Google's Privacy Sandbox is not actively tracking us? It's reminiscent of turning off Bluetooth and WiFi in the Settings on iPhones, only to find out they still emit radio waves.

agwa 3y ago
A few ways you could verify it's off: 1. Try using the Privacy Sandbox APIs on your own site to confirm they don't work. 2. Examine your Chrome profile to make sure it doesn't contain ad topics or ad measurement data. 3. Sniff network traffic to ensure Chrome is not sending anything sensitive to Google (using SSLKEYLOGFILE so you can decrypt HTTPS connections). EFF's article ought to be clearer that all of the privacy sandbox logic happens on your own device rather than Google servers.

hnburnsy 3y ago

Its BS that Google makes these settings per browser and not per account, so you have to make these changes on each computer\phone you use. Anyone know if these settings apply to a private browser session.

Terr_ 3y ago
On the flip side, isn't the "track and categorize" data also per-browser? If so, then it seems like a natural extension. The opposite--tying it to a persistent widespread account--seems creepier overall.

fumar 3y ago

Third party cookies were used without your opt in consent to create profiles based on your behavior by companies like LiveRamp or Oracle. Apple and Google have eliminated or will eliminate the covert tracking based on 3p cookies and mobile ad ids. I don’t support dark UI patterns but privacy sandbox and Apple AppTrackingTransparency hurt advertisers, publishers, and ad platforms but improve consumers privacy. It is not a black and white situation given the monopolistic size of these two tech titans but their privacy solutions are based on aggregated and locally stored data vs cloud based covert 1:1 identifiers - which you couldn’t control.

skybrian 3y ago

I checked “ad topics” (I do this occasionally) and there are more topics, but they are still really generic and seem entirely harmless in my case. Yes, it’s personalization, but only barely. On the other hand, website domain names are often very specialized, which means that “Site suggested ads” can be very specific. These are the ads that follow you around. So far I’ve just deleted one that annoyed me. It seems pretty controllable.

Zuiii 3y ago

> almost 500 advertising categories Wait. Doesn't that just mean that google collects 500 bits of information about you? How is that not considered an ID? I don't understand.

charcircuit 3y ago
The browser keeps track of he top 5 categories from this list of these 629 topics. https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/topics/blob/main/taxonomy_v2.md https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/topics/blob/main/... Other than when it returns a random topic, the browser only reveals a topic to a site if that site has observed the user on a site with that topic before. For an epoch a site can only get at most 1 topic. The browser will return topics for up to the last 3 epochs (the site only gets data for the epochs it has called the API in)
cpeterso 3y ago
I believe tropic interest is calculated locally by the (Google) browser, though it might be repeatable on the Google server side for users syncing their browsing history to a Google account. The Topics API itself only returns up to three topic IDs to websites, not 500 bits for all topics. But that still gives trackers up to 500 * 499 * 498 (124,251,000) topic combinations that can be paired with other fingerprintable user information like GeoIP, language, browser version, and operating system.

mediumsmart 3y ago

Just in case anyone missed the memo Google is an advertising company that only makes money with the shitty part of the internet which is why that part is expanding. The chrome plated gmail cohorts have been educated to read for free and publish for compensation. They need a shitty internet to thrive, post and "make something awesome" in. The shitty internet is doing fine and raising the participants it needs. The free internet is indestructible and made by people who care. And of course it belongs to the minority.

tictacttoe 3y ago

My two cents is that while browser tracking matters, people should also be conscious of not giving away their email and cell number when signing up for accounts or making purchases. Every time you do this, the company sells the data to Google and Meta and it gets joined together on those primary keys, creating a comprehensive profile of your interests. Use Apple’s “Hide my email” and I also like the company “my pseudo” which creates throw away e-mails and cell numbers. It’s silly to be all up tight about browser tracking, but then register everywhere with your real personal information.

trogdor 3y ago
I hear this a lot, but I have never understood the details. How is the data sold to Google? What program are these websites participating in, where Google is paying them for customer email addresses, phone numbers, and purchase history?
- tictacttoe 3y ago
  From ChatGPT, Yes, Google and Meta (the parent company of Facebook) do allow businesses to upload customer email addresses and phone numbers for advertising purposes, under specific conditions. This process is part of what's known as "Custom Audiences." 1. *Google Customer Match:* Google allows businesses to upload a list of email addresses through their Google Ads service. This feature, known as Customer Match, lets advertisers target or retarget their advertisements to these customers across Google products like Search, Shopping, YouTube, and Gmail. Businesses must comply with Google's policies and data protection laws. 2. *Meta Custom Audiences:* Similarly, Meta (Facebook) offers a feature called Custom Audiences, where businesses can upload lists of emails or phone numbers. These are then used to match users on Facebook, Instagram, and other platforms in Meta's network for targeted advertising. The data is hashed to protect user privacy, and the businesses must have the right to use this data. Both companies emphasize privacy and the necessity for businesses to have obtained the data lawfully and with the user's consent. Users also have tools at their disposal to control their ad preferences and understand why they are seeing certain ads. It's a balance between effective targeted advertising and user privacy, governed by both internal policies and external regulations like GDPR and CCPA. Google and Meta are building social graphs across this uploaded information.

awinter-py 3y ago

from a web standards perpsective, how can a different browser comply with this new spec? by sending telemetry to google? or like to firefox?