3 ms·
That doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. Google has been trying to make this transition happen for years. The CMA is the one strong-arming them into
by SquareWheel 2y ago
That doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. Google has been trying to make this transition happen for years. The CMA is the one strong-arming them into maintaining the status quo. The article even mentions 39 new concerns raised which has resulted in yet another extension.
Without this interference, third-party party cookies would have been dead years ago.
- judiisis 2y agoPrivacy sandbox is not private, that's why ICO(UK's privacy watchdog) raised concerns,https://www.wsj.com/tech/google-cookies-replacement-not-enough-to-protect-uk-consumer-privacy-580d1b16 https://www.wsj.com/tech/google-cookies-replacement-not-enou...
- SquareWheel 2y agoSorry, I'm not a WSJ subscriber. It wouldn't surprise me if Google are being squeezed between two organizations with different goals though. Ultimately the Privacy Sandbox has dozens of different proposals, and each is on a separate standards track. It's not a singular technology. I will say that many of the proposals do directly improve user privacy, or offer more-private alternatives to existing APIs. But I'd also be surprised if there weren't objections as well. It's the web, and scrutiny is important.
- IX-103 2y agoIt's at least as private as third party cookies. And unlike third party cookies there is a path to improve privacy as technology improves. Some of the required technologies (private model training, debuggable trusted execution environments) are still research topics, so some sacrifices have to be made until it can be deployed.