4 ms·
Google, Microsoft, Meta All Tracking You Even When You Opt Out
- CWwdcdk7h 7mo ago[dead]
- pixel_popping 7mo agoIs there still anyone competent that "doubt" so? As long as data transit through their infrastructure, in security, we must always assume that it's recorded (and later-on, eventually used), it has nothing to do with "settings".
- tlibert 7mo agoIf a user has an "opt-out" button or signal it should be wired up to a system that functions as such. This is just a software engineering, you could vibe-code a fix in ten minutes.
- Zetaphor 7mo agoYou are assuming this was simply a development oversight and not part of a larger systemic issue
- tlibert 7mo agoOh, I very much am not.
- pixel_popping 7mo agoExactly, this is wanted, why would Google not exploit your data "opted-out"? That makes no-sense from their business point of view.
- pixel_popping 7mo agoOpt-out still goes through their servers, which means unsecure. We use encryption everywhere to not trust the middle layer, if it transits somewhere in cleartext, then it's logged and eventually used later-on. I genuinely believe that people are insane to think otherwise, proof is that there has been millions(billions?) issued in fines for non-respect of this specific issue, why are people still having "hope"? It doesn't make sense, it's THERE, it's in THEIR DB. The same goes for LLMs of course, every prompts is recorded and will be used, be sure of that.
- superkuh 7mo agoLuckily almost all modern corporate tracking is done through javascript execution + cookies. The days of parsing actual webserver logs are over for the most part. After all, it's only the browsers that execute javascript code and provide profitable personal information about the human behind the browser that matter. People with JS off are not providing sellable information and therefore classified and treated as if they were bots. Turning off JS by default and temp-whitelisting only mitigates most of this tracking.
- phn 7mo agoThe issue is, even with all the browser protections, you still create an account anywhere or buy something an input your name/email address/shipping address, your "hashed data" immediately gets sent to meta/google as a conversion with "this guy bought a cat toy", and you start getting ads for cat related stuff everywhere. They don't even need to "track" you properly for this stuff to work and it seems there's no way to escape it.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- superkuh 7mo agoI don't experience that though I have friends who use smartphones who describe it. So I think a lot of it is via javascript. I doubt every retailer, or even a significant fraction, has their backend sending that type of data to $megacorp. But maybe I'm just lucky or shop weird places or it's because I use a new email address @superkuh.com for every account sign up. Or maybe I'm just not seeing the targeted ads for my $superkuhprofile that do exist because I have almost all ads successfully blocked. Perfect is the enemy of good anyway, all mitigations help a bit. And blocking JS is a huge mitigation.
- stackskipton 7mo agoIf those companies are using big SaaS companies for eCommerce and have not going "Don't Track" part of their admin panel to turn off tracking, a lot of those SaaS companies will just sell off the data. So sure, cat toy small time retailer on Etsy won't but credit card processor or shipper might.
- rolph 7mo agothey have no fear of the current financial incentives, there has to a punitive quantity involved, and the mentality of any regulators has to catch up with present day. fines that amount to a daily expenditure account, do nothing. fines have to have potential to do real damage to, or destroy noncompliants, if there is going to be any deterrent. contempt, is obvious, the chance of jail should exist in actuality, rather than a vague possibility.
- tlibert 7mo agoIf you read the report this is why I say network traffic with a Sec-GPC: 1 (GPC opt-out) should return a 451 automatically instead of a cookie, and how the Meta Pixel code can wrap a GPC conditional around execution. That's why they are terrified - fines don't matter, code does.
- rolph 7mo agoyes that seems to be workable, but then its thier code, and house techs you have to preempt. the problem seems to be one of, effectively compelling a change of code and heuristics. im wondering what would be more effective. 1] desist or existentially threatening fines, or indentureship will occur. 2] you have a problem with code maintainence, we will take code maintainence into receivership, until you have demonstrated that you can maintain code in a legal framework.
- nostrademons 7mo agoThat's a terrible idea though. It means that anyone who selects the "Do not track me" option will find that they can't access the content at all, which will quickly train users to never select "Do not track me".
- wnevets 7mo ago> fines that amount to a daily expenditure account, do nothing. Even those relatively small fines rarely get paid. Companies can tie up the judgements in the courts for years without having to pay a single cent. [1] > The Data Protection Commission (DPC) is owed more than €4 billion in fines that have not been collected or are subject to legal challenge. The DPC hit companies – including firms in Big Tech – with more than €530 million in fines last year. However, just €125,000 of that has been collected so far, according to data released under FOI laws. Over the past six years, the commission has levied an incredible €4.04 billion in fines, mostly on multinational technology companies. However, of that total, €4.02 billion remains uncollected and just €20 million has been paid in fines so far. In 2024, €652 million worth of fines was levied, of which €582,500 has been paid. [1] https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2026/01/12/data-protection-commission-owed-more-than-4-billion-in-fines/ https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2026/01/12/data-protecti...
- Havoc 7mo agoThat’s what made big tech big - one giant tracking operation. Trawler style - dolphins be damned
- tlibert 7mo agoThis report relies on several year old technology on our part, our more cutting systems are a few years beyond SOTA, and I can there's a lot more under the surface.
- dec0dedab0de 7mo agoI mean duh, but also this seems like a fairly weak gotcha. Cookies != Tracking, they can track you just fine without cookies, and they can use cookies without tracking you.
- rockskon 7mo agoCooking != Tracking? That's historically been a very prominent purpose of cookies. Sure it's not exclusively tracking, but it's nonsense to make the assertion that "Cookies != Tracking"
- tlibert 7mo agoCookies serve a lot of valuable purposes, it's important to disambiguate.
- rockskon 7mo agoSure. But given the lack of specificity from the person I was responding to, it felt important to correct.
- dec0dedab0de 7mo agoSure it's not exclusively tracking, but it's nonsense to make the assertion that "Cookies != Tracking" They're not primarily for tracking either.
- benrutter 7mo ago> Cookies != Tracking, they can track you just fine without cookies That's probably true, but not what the articles reporting: > 55 percent of the sites it checked set ad cookies in a user’s browser even if they opted out of tracking So essentially, it's ignoring user preference directly, not just in spirit.
- Balinares 7mo ago"Legitimate interest."
- tlibert 7mo agoHi, I'm Dr Tim Libert, founder of webXray who did this audit. Happy to answer questions from YC'ers. [Note, stepping away for some mental health exercise, stressful day!] I also want to push back on Google telling the press our California Privacy Audit is "is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how [Google's] products work". I'm the former head of Cookie Compliance at Google and I have the federal court filings that show their statements are not simply true, and Google knows it isn't true. For the record, here are direct quotes from a federal court filing made by Google's "Data Protection Officer and Senior Director of Privacy", who stated that "If called to testify as a witness, [they] could and would testify competently to such facts under oath." Here are those facts: * "Due to Dr. Libert’s academic background focusing on cookies, he became one of the primary members of the team assisting with Google’s cookie compliance and governance efforts..." * "Dr. Libert quickly assumed responsibility for aiding our in-house regulatory lawyers in addressing governmental investigations into cookies..." * "Dr. Libert often worked under the guidance of in-house counsel to develop technical solutions to issues raised by privacy regulators..." * "Dr. Libert was also responsible for the development of internal policies on cookies and web storage. He drafted Google’s internal cookie guidelines in 2021 and early 2022, which applies to all cookies or cookies-like objects, and outlines processes on managing cookies, storing cookies, logging data associated with cookies, server protocols, policies on data collection, and data linkage..." * "By developing the policy and conducting the audit, Dr. Libert gained insight into every Google-owned cookie deployed across Google’s web properties..." * "Dr. Libert also proposed changes to how Google interprets specific definitions across its products’ various privacy policies. This included work on policies relating to analytics and advertising services used by third-party apps and websites..." -- TLDR: Google can say what they want about me in public, but when they are under oath in a federal court of law, this is what they really say.
- dfhvneoieno 7mo ago[dead]
- therealmarv 7mo agoAnd in modern times: everybody, including big companies trust the AI APIs from Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic etc. etc. sure... the contracts saying often there is no saving or learning from the AI API usage. But it's at the end like a "trust me bro" promise. There is a saying on the internet: The generation that refused cookies is now giving AI permission to read their emails, scan their local files, and manage their bank accounts. It seems many have given up...
- tlibert 7mo agoLuckily "trust me bro" is not a defense in court - there is a thing called "discovery" when they have to prove their claims. The fact is few regulators ever use it, but class-action cases often do. Guess who's winning?
- lazide 7mo agoCompanies have been getting increasingly aggressive with ‘destruction as a normal course of business/policy’ to help reduce the impact of that. And that assumes that the people tasked with doing the dirty work are following the policies. It’s been pretty obvious at the federal level (Signal leaks, etc.) that the folks at the top are explicitly trying to avoid it.
- codemog 7mo agoJail time for execs. Only way things change.
- tlibert 7mo agoJust update the codebase, much easier, 10 minutes.
- Zetaphor 7mo agoThat entirely ignores and excuses the chain of decisions that lead to this problem. Removing it from the codebase today does nothing to dissuade them from doing something similar tomorrow
- tlibert 7mo agoThat's why webXray (https://webxray.ai https://webxray.ai) has perfected forensic privacy auditing - we catch every code change that has visible traces. I'll catch the same thing any way you do it - cookies, local storage, js obfuscated network payloads...no sweat. I'll go all day long.
- 725686 7mo agoI'm shocked!.... not
- ramijames 7mo agoWhy wouldn't they? There seems to be no real consequences for these huge corporations, and all of the potential profit incentives.
- ChrisArchitect 7mo agoSource: https://globalprivacyaudit.org/2026/california https://globalprivacyaudit.org/2026/california
- tlibert 7mo agoThanks, California is our first audit, more countries and topics to come!
- david_d8912 7mo agoNow it'll be interesting to see if the AI companies do the same
- tlibert 7mo agoStill waiting on a public recognition from a company I helped quietly fix a serious problem. I'm generally on the side of helping people fix, revealing what's going on publicly isn't our first preference. (And to the person who resolved the issue with the Major AI Company - would it really hurt to give a shout-out for the help we gave you?)
- WhyNotHugo 7mo agoIn other news, thieves steal things, and liars keep telling lies.
- tlibert 7mo agoAnd the tellers of truth keep telling the truth.
- measurablefunc 7mo agoWait until you folks learn about the quantum panopticon. It sounds fake but governments everywhere are recording as much encrypted data as possible in hopes of decrypting it in the future w/ quantum computers: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11023-025-09723-2 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11023-025-09723-2
- tlibert 7mo agoYes, only true solutions are network layer severing.
- mistrial9 7mo agogreat works! hope this gets more attention soon. Unfortunately I do not care for the graphic at the top of article (that casual readers will be impressed by) since it conflates spiritual imagery with spying.. People with little education in either easily conflate the two.. People who are hostile to spiritual topics can quickly amplify the vilification of it.. so, please consider not using that kind of symbol in media campaigns and public outreach. thx
- tlibert 7mo agoThat's their decision, our report is very factually designed: https://globalprivacyaudit.org https://globalprivacyaudit.org
- jmward01 7mo agoI always opt out if given the option and if not given the option I click x and close the site. However, unfortunately, I have assumed that they are already tracking me when the pop-up hits. This kinda confirms that is true. We have 'get tough on X, Y, Z' things that don't impact me at all. You can dial 911 if someone assaults you in the US, but I don't know of a single resource to get law enforcement involved when I am digitally assaulted. I think that is a big part of the problem here. Nobody is actually taking the call to enforce this stuff.
- sigbottle 7mo agoForget the "Humans must always be in the loop for accountability" argument against AI, we already don't have such checks today!
- tlibert 7mo agoHa, the question is always "which humans"!
- tlibert 7mo agoThe only reason I ever click reject is to open the devtools and count the ads cookies still set. I managed to turn that hobby into https://webxray.ai https://webxray.ai as a business.
- jmward01 7mo agoThere may be an opportunity here for a plugin that auto-reports violations in some way that can then be used in lawsuits against these companies. Obviously there are privacy concerns with something like this but there may be ways to anonymize the data or otherwise preserve privacy meaningfully. There is 'company X is doing bad thing' and 'company X did bad thing, provably, this many times to these people'.
- tlibert 7mo agoFor legal work you need a controlled forensic environment, this is evidence gathering in the same way a crime scene is. We've developed a lot of proprietary methods to ensure clean-room conditions. That's not to say the idea isn't interesting, but in terms of legal proceedings, chain of custody with the forensic data is most important.
- robotswantdata 7mo agoMax Schrems has entered the chat.
- tlibert 7mo agoMax is a lawyer, I'm an engineer. ;-)
- shevy-java 7mo agoThese greedy corporations spy on us. Our data is valueable to them. When someone spies on you, it means they do not trust you. That means we should not trust them either. It's not just merely these giant corporations though. I think the whole business model is broken, if they need to spy on people in order to milk out more profit. One big glaring weakness is ... the browser. I think we need to find a solution here. Chrome is a problem. Chromium can not offset this problem; Google still makes most decisions. (You can adapt, but it is a constants wear-and-tear race to do so, Google has more resources.) I used to think that Ladybird could provide an alternative; then I was banned from the project site, allegedly for "trolling" and "insulting". I disagree with that but there is no real regulation to protest. This unfortunately exemplifies a problem how the modern www became too restrictive in general and alternatives stumble on their own "morality", before they even produced a real competitor here. (I still think there should be competitors to Google, so it is good that Ladybird exists; I am just no longer attached in any way as to whether they succeed or not, due to the ban.) What we need is a real global movement. Everywhere. The whole www model has to change. It should not be controllable by private entities or state agencies - those who watch the age verification process already know what's coming next. Got your ID ready to access information yet, bud?
- tlibert 7mo agoSo this is the first audit in our Global Privacy Audit, we're going to keep going. California was the warm up, we're going world-wide with this, our technology scales 1:1 with theirs.
- Lapsa 7mo agomind reading tech is here
- kittikitti 7mo agoI don't think monetary fines are going to protect the rights of the people. The justice system must arrest the CEO's and put them into prison. I would like to know if there are less drastic measures, but there needs to be consequences such that these corporations won't try this again.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 7mo agoMeta's WhatsApp app under certain network conditions will try to bypass Android VPN settings using Google Public DNS servers even when (a) the OS settings "Always-on VPN" and "Block connections without VPN" are enabled, (b) port 53 is forwarded to a local address,^1 (c) DNS settings under "Network details" for the router point to local addresses only and (d) "Mobile data" is disabled for the SIM and the phone has no access to cellular data (e.g., MMS will fail) Even the Google pre-installed system apps don't do this Meta's attempts to conduct surveillance go further than ignoring the sec-gpc header. Meta tries to bypass Android's built-in VPN and the system DNS settings I use a computer I can reasonably control, i.e., one running an OS I compiled myself, as the gateway for the phone so traffic destined for 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 is blocked by the gateway's firewall. (TLS forward proxy on the gateway also adds sec-gpc header to all HTTP/HTTPS traffic^2) 1. For example, using PCAPDroid or NetGuard 2. In addition to HTTPS traffic, Meta's WhatsApp app sends some requests over unencrypted HTTP, too, e.g., destined for c.whatsapp.net
- aagha 7mo agoDo third party solutions like AdBlock prevent this?
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 7mo agoAs for the networking conditions required to reproduce this issue, bringing down the network interface on the gateway will trigger it for me
- wormius 7mo agoIt's funny that following the link to source https://globalprivacyaudit.org/2026/california https://globalprivacyaudit.org/2026/california Appends a source-url attribute at the end (404media). I'm sure they're not doing anything nefarious with it, but it is a tiny bit ironic that there's a referral url like that associated with an organization that is speaking out about global privacy audits. I'm glad they're doing this, and understand this is complex, but throwing out a "check the plank in thine eye before the sty in the others". I haven't really dealt with referral links like that, IIRC that's something 404 is sending as a referrer URL? Would it be prudent to reroute on the GPA sites such referral urls to strip them before sending back?
- tlibert 7mo agoWe don’t process it, not our decorator.
- JohnTHaller 7mo agoWorking as intended #WONTFIX
- wbshaw 7mo agoI have no Meta or Amazon apps on my phone. It's been this way since I quit buying my phones through my carrier where all their crap and "partner" apps required jailbreaking to remove. This isn't perfect but I feel better.