7 ms·
Google shares update on next step toward phasing out third-party cookies
- DavideNL 3y ago> “Dec 14, 2023”
- danjc 3y agoAnyone know whether cookies that share the same base domain are treated with more respect?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- beardyw 3y agoLooks as if that will be ok. "chrome://flags/#test-third-party-cookie-phaseout is available from Chrome 118" if you want to test it.
- isomorphic 3y agoWe'd love to believe that you care about privacy, Google--just stop sending any non-user-requested data from Chrome to any Google property.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- theshrike79 3y agoPeople keep forgetting that the vast majority of Google's revenue comes from ads. They're literally an ad company, that dabbles in cool tech as their 20% project. If Google is phasing out 3rd party cookies, they're not doing it for privacy, they're doing it because they've figured out how to track people without them. And they don't want their competitors to do the same. Thus: Remove 3rd party cookie support from their market-leading browser to hobble competition.
- thejackgoode 3y agoVote with your wallet — stop using Chrome
- theshrike79 3y agoAnd by extension all Chromium-based browsers, which sadly limits your selection to Firefox and Safari pretty much.
- rwaksmunski 3y agoLooks like they figured out a way to track you without 3rd party cookies and are looking to use their dominant position as a browser vendor to undercut competing ad vendors who haven't figured it out yet. I wonder if those obnoxious Login with Google popups have anything to do with it.
- riku_iki 3y agoWondering what UK authorities will say which are referenced in blog post.
- danpalmer 3y agoThe spec for the targeting replacement is public, I believe it's called FLEDGE. Third party cookies uniquely identify one browser allowing direct targeting, whereas FLEDGE only allows general targeting of larger groups by topic as far as I understand it. I believe it's entirely distinct from Google accounts. Disclaimer, I work at Google on related things on the Android side, but I only have a layman's understanding of the Chrome side.
- bozhark 3y agoWhy is this a chrome thing? Wouldn’t it be all search?
- thorncorona 3y agoIt requires cooperation from the browser to do generalized targeting.
- danpalmer 3y agoThe browser, which doesn't need to be Chrome although that's the only implementation I've heard of, does local tracking. It then exposes APIs to ad networks to allow them to target based on that tracking. As far as I understand the "tracking" never leaves the device, and the "targeting" is fairly wide based on topics like "cars" or "holidays".
- olliej 3y agoJust as a reminder to folk, safari never allowed third party cookies by default, and when google made chrome they made the choice to enable third party cookies as the primary purpose of chrome is to support google's ad business. Anything that they do needs to be considered in context, including "different" browsers that just re-ship chromium, as they simply solidify the chromium monopoly of what defines the web - i haven't seen "you must use safari" or "you must use Firefox", only "you must use chrome". I've seen enough people (incl. on HN) claiming that if chrome and the spec or chrome and other browsers diverge chrome is inherently right to recall the days of "IE is always the correct one" (also try to remember that while MS did a bunch of clearly BS reasons to beat netscape, IE was also a more capable, faster, and more responsive browser than netscape at the time, it was only once it rendered netscape irrelevant that the great stagnation happened).
- rs_rs_rs_rs_rs 3y agoChrome is an amazing browser, thank you Google for investing a lot of money into it!
- henriquez 3y agoIt’s because they love you so much.
- rs_rs_rs_rs_rs 3y agoAll the things made by Google that I use make my life easier, they do love their customers, you're right!
- Eisenstein 3y agoIf anyone hasn't read this document: * https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-11/417581.pdf https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-11/417581.pdf I suggest they do so. It gives a good look at the conflict between the different departments in Google re: revenue vs. value. If there are any questions about the motivations behind changes such as these, this may provide a bit of insight.
- charcircuit 3y agoRolling this out to 1% is a big deal and is the culmination of a lot of engineering work. Shout out to all the Googlers and other contributers who have contributed to this goal of phasing out third party cookies.
- yedava 3y agoGoogle is in the business of surveiling users and selling them to advertisers. Hell, if it weren't for Google, other business models that don't require user surveillance might have taken off. The only solution to surveillance is software that users are in full control of. Chrome isn't that.
- IshKebab 3y agoThey're in the business of targeted advertising, not privacy violation. There's a difference.
- archerx 3y agoIs there really?
- zelphirkalt 3y agoAnd what is that difference in practice? Seems to me, that targetting requires privacy violation.
- candiodari 3y agoAllow me to illustrate the difference: https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/the-u-s-government-is-secretly-using-cell-phone-location-data-to-track-us-were-suing https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/the-u-s-governme... Targetting people to arrest and deport them, to use violence against them. That would be a practical example of government privacy violation. I work at a telco, and they also do this for debt enforcement, locating not-up-to-date-on-payments cars, tracking down kids who ran to their parents from youth services is also done, ... THAT is a real problem. Suggesting it's time to buy a present for your wife because of upcoming wedding anniversary is targeted advertising.
- LocalH 3y agoThere's no difference. Targeted advertising demands information that I (and others) may not want Google (or other scumbag advertisers) to have. That's a privacy violation.
- beardyw 3y agoThere seems to be two questions here: Is it what you want - often "no" Is it better than what we have - often "I suppose so :("
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoI would extend the second question with one more: Does this improve things by just enough to make even better options less likely to materialize?
- lostmsu 3y agoBetter? I think you are ignoring 2nd+ order effects stemming from monopolization.
- ChrisArchitect 3y ago(2023)
- ChrisArchitect 3y ago[dupe] More recent discussion over last few days instead of this old post that's been submitted a bunch. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38880690 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38880690 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38866109 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38866109
- ChrisArchitect 3y agoDiscussion last month: Preparing for the end of third-party cookies https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38413263 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38413263
- lifthrasiir 3y ago> If a site doesn’t work without third-party cookies and Chrome notices you’re having issues — like if you refresh a page multiple times — we’ll prompt you with an option to temporarily re-enable third-party cookies for that website from the eye icon on the right side of your address bar. Oh god, we are going to see something more annoying than cookie banners soon. (And this time we are not even sure whether Google is at least trying to do things in users' favor...)
- zelphirkalt 3y agoFinally users, who don't care about online privacy will have a similarly bad experience as users who do care, but for some reason have to use a website that uses many third party scripts and cookies. For example some online shop, where they want to buy something but need to allow third party scripts to complete the purchase, enabling those in ublock and reloading the page, only to find out that even more are required.
- TekMol 3y agoSo the thing this prevents is: 1: User visits domain A which includes a script from domain T. The script sets a cookie with a unique ID on domain T. 2: User visits domain B which also includes the script from domain T. With the request for the script, the browser also sends the cookie with the unique ID. 3: T now knows "Someone visited domain A and B". 4: If T figures out something private about the user on site A (say their Twitter handle), they now know that Twitter handle X visited domain A and domain B. Is this a correct summary of what this is about? I guess this means that Meta knows a lot of domains which handle xyz visits. Because they set the cookie when the owner of handle xyz logs into their account and then sees them on every domain which includes a script from Meta. So is this an attack on Meta by Google?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- zelon88 3y agoThey can still accomplish this by loading some resource from meta servers. They don't need the cookie at all. They could do it with a .png icon if they wanted to.
- redder23 3y agoGoogle loves doing this as they have all the info from everyone anyway and have first hand access to fingerprinting users, so they just cut out the competition who do it in this outdated fashion.
- LocalH 3y agoFuck Google. They did the biggest pivot in all of tech history. From "do no evil" to "do ALL the evil first".