Google Rules Out U-Turn on Cookies Policy Attacked by Ad Firms (bloomberg.com) 33
Google says it's refusing to ditch planned changes to its cookie policy that attracted regulatory scrutiny and a wave of opposition from ad-tech companies and publishers. From a report: The Alphabet unit upended the advertising industry with its decision last year to phase out third-party cookies that help advertisers pinpoint customers with ads for websites they previously visited and monitor which ads convinced them to buy. "We're making explicit that once third-party cookies are phased out, we will not build alternate identifiers to track individuals as they browse across the web, nor will we use them in our products," David Temkin, Google's director of product management, ads privacy and user trust, said in a blog post on Wednesday. Google said last year that its so-called privacy sandbox initiative aims to tackle concerns people have about privacy and how their personal identity is used.
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the ad companies are upset about the change then it must be a good thing.
Re: Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're missing the point.
Google is an ad company.
The biggest one.
And they are smiling.
Do they need to literally spell out "Prepare your anus.", or what? ;)
Duh (Score:3)
Google is an ad company.
The biggest one.
And they are smiling.
Of course they are because it will provide them with greater control over the flow of information which is increases its value. However, this also means that fewer people will have access to that information. How is that not better?
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
If the ad companies are upset about the change then it must be a good thing.
The problem is that Google is inherently an ad company. So, Google blocking third party cookies in the name of 'privacy' is, fundamentally, them saying "Invasive, internet-wide tracking is a terrible privacy invasion...unless we're doing it."
Loathe internet ads as I do, the reality is that this is textbook 90's Microsoft behavior.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google blocking third party cookies in the name of 'privacy' is, fundamentally, them saying "Invasive, internet-wide tracking is a terrible privacy invasion...unless we're doing it."
Isn't that better than every ad company doing it?
Re: (Score:2)
If the ad companies are upset about the change then it must be a good thing.
The problem is that Google is inherently an ad company. So, Google blocking third party cookies in the name of 'privacy' is, fundamentally, them saying "Invasive, internet-wide tracking is a terrible privacy invasion...unless we're doing it."
Actually, Google is saying that it's a privacy invasion, so Google is going to stop doing it. This is Google deciding to be better. Granted that they wouldn't likely be making this decision if they didn't think they had found an alternative that enables effective ad targeting without invasive, Internet-wide tracking, but the fact remains that they're making the decision to stop tracking people and to stop targeting ads using cross-site tracking information.
At least, that's my reading of the announcement;
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Google is saying that it's a privacy invasion, so Google is going to stop doing it. This is Google deciding to be better. Granted that they wouldn't likely be making this decision if they didn't think they had found an alternative that enables effective ad targeting without invasive, Internet-wide tracking, but the fact remains that they're making the decision to stop tracking people and to stop targeting ads using cross-site tracking information.
Don't forget most sites install Google code right into their site (analytics, captcha, google login, etc.) so Google don't need third party cookies to track users across sites. They can track you across sites with the code most sites voluntarily install already, without third party cookies, just normal plain Google cookies.
Not half bad, the Englishman said (Score:2)
Gatekeeper (Score:5, Insightful)
Google just wants to be the only first-party that hits everything, making them a gatekeeper for 3rd parties that collect this data directly now. This is simply a business move, Google does not care about privacy.
Re:Gatekeeper (Score:5, Insightful)
That's absolutely correct. However, this is still welcome news. It means that Google is a better gatekeeper of data about you than most of the players. One might argue that it's actually best for this to be part of their business model, because it decreases motivation to change it. Corporations do what's profitable, and if Google sees more profit in protecting your data for their own use than in letting third parties have access to it, then that means they're going to fight dramatically harder for it than if they didn't.
This is a case of Google's interest aligning with yours. It doesn't make them noble, it only makes them predictable. But enough is as good as a feast.
Re:Gatekeeper (Score:4, Interesting)
IOW, this change probably doesn't make things worse (unless you're a third party adtech provider, in which case it pulls the bread and butter right out of your mouth) but it doesn't make them significantly better either.
Re:Gatekeeper (Score:5, Insightful)
That's fine. We can call this a "less bad" thing.
Meanwhile, I use ad-block, and recommend everyone else does, too.
Re: (Score:2)
How does ad block help if all ad tracking/serving code is now served from google.com? I run NoScript and have to whitelist this domain otherwise half the web seems to stop working.
I mean I get that ad blockers are more sophisticated than just blocking whole domains but this just seems like Google have figured they can own the whole space because of their dominance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And in fact, I do. I use ublock origin, noscript, and opt-out for analytics. I block a number of google domains. Google has my search data and my email, which is plenty. They don't need my browsing history as well. I only occasionally use Chromium, mostly when I need to run some Chrome app but also occasionally for some rare site that won't work properly with Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
I use Chrome and Firefox regularly (at work and home). I think Firefox has pulled clearly ahead of Chrome these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Google will still be selling access to your data; that's their business. It's like Facebook taking action against companies that screen-scrape their site: they're not interested in your privacy, they just want to make companies pay them to get access to your data.
Increasing the price of your data in this way could technically be considered an improvement, since it will reduce the number of companies that will access it, but it's not a significant win for privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
"Google will still be selling access to your data; that's their business."
No.
Their business is selling access to your eyeballs.
Re: (Score:2)
That's absolutely correct. However, this is still welcome news. It means that Google is a better gatekeeper of data about you than most of the players. One might argue that it's actually best for this to be part of their business model, because it decreases motivation to change it. Corporations do what's profitable, and if Google sees more profit in protecting your data for their own use than in letting third parties have access to it, then that means they're going to fight dramatically harder for it than if they didn't.
I'd say that's a good description of Google's past and current business practices. Google has always found it more profitable to protect your data and not let third parties have access to it.
But I think it's a bad description of Google's plan for the future, which is to stop collecting and using your data.
Re: (Score:2)
"But I think it's a bad description of Google's plan for the future, which is to stop collecting and using your data."
What? Since when did they stop being an advertising company?
Re: (Score:2)
That's absolutely correct. However, this is still welcome news. It means that Google is a better gatekeeper of data about you than most of the players.
Assuming they don't change their minds once they are the gatekeepers, because they have enough power to get away with it. That's the trouble with gatekeepers.
Re: (Score:2)
I just want to know who “Fisheye” is ....
Re: Gatekeeper (Score:3, Funny)
I love how "business" has become a term for justifying crime thst isn't illegal yet.
"$company found this loophole to allow them to grind down babies and stuff them into thermos bottles to sell as Trucker's Fleshlight. It's only business. And it's not illegal. So what's your problem? They can do whatever the fuck they want! Ever heard about Freedom(TM)?"
And the worst part is that businesses of course aren't evil per se, but every one that's not, is out-competed and dies.
True, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have agreed to google having my data by signing up to a google account, I have not signed up to a bunch of unknown 3rd parties.
This policy effectively mirrors the requirement of the GDPR that personal private data cannot be shared with 3rd parties without the data subjects express permission.
Re:Gatekeeper (Score:5, Interesting)
Google just wants to be the only first-party that hits everything, making them a gatekeeper for 3rd parties that collect this data directly now. This is simply a business move, Google does not care about privacy.
This is similar to what Apple is doing on iOS: They are limiting the ability for 3rd parties to track users, BUT Apple is still quite able to track users even more effectively than anyone else ever was. It's no coincidence that Apple is also in the advertising game, and trying to play catch-up to Google. Of course Google is able to track anyone on Android as well as Apple can on iOS. I'm wary of both Google and Apple (and Microsoft too), but at least if these companies horde the tracking data, then it's not on the open market for anyone to use (until they get hacked and it's all exposed, that is).
Re: (Score:2)
Google just wants to be the only first-party that hits everything, making them a gatekeeper for 3rd parties that collect this data directly now. This is simply a business move, Google does not care about privacy.
That reading does not agree with TFA, or Google's statements. Google says it's going to stop tracking people or using information derived from tracking people.
I'm not sure what it means to say that a company does or does not care about X. Companies are conglomerations of people, who have many varying views. I can tell you that most Google employees I work with (I work for Google) do care about privacy, quite a bit. While I think that Google actually already does a much better job with user privacy than I
Re: (Score:2)
> "We're making explicit that once third-party cookies are phased out, we will not build alternate identifiers to track individuals as they browse across the web, nor will we use them in our products," David Temkin, Google's director of product management, ads privacy and user trust, said in a blog post on Wednesday.
That does not say anything about *existing* identifiers. Google will still have and use its first-party cookie, which already contains an identifier. Then we get into what is Google's use o
Because Google doesn't need them. (Score:3, Interesting)
The tech behind most recent version of reCAPTCHA easily allows them to identify you without cookies, just from the information it can gather about its environment and your behavior.