3 ms·

Is it fair to assume this is used for fingerprinting/tracking users?

by bonestamp2 2y ago

sophiebits 2y ago
[flagged]
- daniel_levine 2y ago
  this is a great comment, thank you for your service!
  - IshKebab 2y ago
    [flagged]
diggan 2y ago
The tweet says: > So, Google Chrome gives all *.google.com sites full access to system / tab CPU usage, GPU usage, and memory usage. It also gives access to detailed processor information, and provides a logging backchannel. Those things can absolutely be used to "improve" fingerprinting. I don't think it's fair to assume it's being used for that though, without any further evidence. But it certainly could be used for it. Anyone have any further context? As it stands right now, it's just a random claim without any proof what so ever? There is link in another comment, but how is that related to the tweet?
- CoastalCoder 2y ago
  > I don't think it's fair to assume it's being used for that though, without any further evidence. Maybe in this situation we should distinguish "fair" vs. "probable". I'd guess it's improbable that Google is trying to use this for fingerprinting. But if we've previously found them with their hand in the cookie jar, then maybe it's fair to treat them as guilty until proven innocent?
rolph 2y ago
perhaps a measure to determine if the owners devices can tolerate one more web app or ad stream before it runs out of resources
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
plorkyeran 2y ago
Google doesn't need any extra help to track users who are browsing Google sites in the Google browser. It is probably instead anticompetitive functionality that lets Google sites work better in Chrome in ways that other sites can't replicate.
- account42 2y ago
  > Google doesn't need any extra help to track users who are browsing Google sites in the Google browser. I would not be surprised if there are cases where this would let them track users they otherwise couldn't. Like someone running two isolated Chrome instances with separate network connections but on the same PC.

Is it fair to assume this is used for fingerprinting/tracking users?

sophiebits 2y ago

[flagged]

daniel_levine 2y ago
this is a great comment, thank you for your service!
- IshKebab 2y ago
  [flagged]

diggan 2y ago

The tweet says: > So, Google Chrome gives all *.google.com sites full access to system / tab CPU usage, GPU usage, and memory usage. It also gives access to detailed processor information, and provides a logging backchannel. Those things can absolutely be used to "improve" fingerprinting. I don't think it's fair to assume it's being used for that though, without any further evidence. But it certainly could be used for it. Anyone have any further context? As it stands right now, it's just a random claim without any proof what so ever? There is link in another comment, but how is that related to the tweet?

CoastalCoder 2y ago
> I don't think it's fair to assume it's being used for that though, without any further evidence. Maybe in this situation we should distinguish "fair" vs. "probable". I'd guess it's improbable that Google is trying to use this for fingerprinting. But if we've previously found them with their hand in the cookie jar, then maybe it's fair to treat them as guilty until proven innocent?

rolph 2y ago

perhaps a measure to determine if the owners devices can tolerate one more web app or ad stream before it runs out of resources

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

plorkyeran 2y ago

Google doesn't need any extra help to track users who are browsing Google sites in the Google browser. It is probably instead anticompetitive functionality that lets Google sites work better in Chrome in ways that other sites can't replicate.

account42 2y ago
> Google doesn't need any extra help to track users who are browsing Google sites in the Google browser. I would not be surprised if there are cases where this would let them track users they otherwise couldn't. Like someone running two isolated Chrome instances with separate network connections but on the same PC.