Google Will Turn Off Third-Party Tracking for Some Chrome Users Soon

Google is about to launch its grand plan to block third-party cookies in Chrome that many websites use to track your activity across the web for profit. From a report: Starting on January 4th, Google will start testing its new Tracking Protection feature that will eventually restrict website access to third-party cookies by default. It will come to a very small subset of Chrome users at the start, specifically to one percent of users globally. Afterward, Google plans to phase out the use of third-party cookies for all users in the second half of 2024.

If you're randomly selected to try Tracking Protection, Google will notify you when opening Chrome on desktop or Android. If there are issues detected by Chrome while you're browsing, a prompt will appear asking if you'd like to temporarily re-enable third-party cookies for the site.

New revenue stream?

[MachineShedFred]

So basically now that Google is the de-facto browser monopoly, they want to extend that monopoly into being a monopoly on browser spying? Gee, I wonder what they're going to do with that data - I'm sure they'd never sell / license access to it to advertisers and paying customers...

Won't US antitrust regulators have something to say about using a legal monopoly to create an illegal one?

Re:

[Turkinolith]

To be fair, they likely already have all that data since Chrome spies on you. It just doesn't need to use a cookie to do so. So, in effect, their just hurting the 3rd party information collectors and strengthening the value of their own harvested data.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

This blocks Google cookies as well. Chrome doesn't collect your browsing data for Google either.

Google won't be worried about ad revenue. They have their alternative in-browser Topics system, which is open to all. It's very easy to block too, so a big win for privacy. You can toggle it off in the browser, or poison the data with an extension.

This is very good news.

Re:

[WaffleMonster]

This blocks Google cookies as well.

The obvious issue is Google is uniquely positioned to know more than anyone else thanks to its dominate market position. Would seem to be quite reasonable indeed to question the motives of one of the worlds most prolific data collectors.

Chrome doesn't collect your browsing data for Google either.

Chrome collects vasts amount of information including failed URLs, page content, site languages, URLs transmitted /w usage stats while signed into chrome, URLs of "slow" sites.

You can still read the old Chrome privacy policies on the wayback machine before they rolled it in

Keywords

[93 Escort Wagon]

"soon", "eventually".

OMG! Internets will break...

[xwin]

I have been blocking third party cookies in my Firefox for years. And in Chrome which I forced to use at work. uBlock origin + Cookie AutoDetete plugins are installed on all of my machines at home and at work. Nobody complained.
Advertisers can go pound sand together with web developers. They have created this problem in the first place by being obnoxious a-holes. You reap what you sow.

Re:

[Seven Spirals]

Advertisers can go pound sand together with web developers

Yes. Yes, they can. Fuck the both of them (and Google, too). There never should have even been third party cookies. Javascript is also highly suspect. I don't want to run your code, so please take that crap elsewhere. If you cannot design your site without it, then it's you who sucks. It's your problem as a web designer, not mine, I don't have to load your shitty website anyway. I'm not going to see your Javascript either way and your site is going to look all broken and half ass when I load it with Dillo

How would Slack or Discord work without JS?

[tepples]

Javascript is also highly suspect. I don't want to run your code, so please take that crap elsewhere. If you cannot design your site without it, then it's you who sucks.

I'm curious as to how you would have designed a chat application, such as Slack or Discord or Element or Mattermost, to avoid using script in the browser. Would the user periodically reload the page to see whether other users have sent messages to a channel or to a direct message conversation? Or would you instead build the client as a native application for a particular operating system's GUI API, presenting a big button to download a native client on some operating systems and a notice of unavailability t

Re:

[grumpy-cowboy]

Yes I want native apps. Stop making closed protocols and just use open ones (IRC / IRCv3, ActivityPub, ...).

If we take IRC to compare with your examples (Slack, Discord, ...): there is a IRCv3 initiative. Why we can't just participate to the effort of developing good open protocols and let anyone who wants developing clients for it (like it was in the past)? No needs for a bunch of closed protocols. No needs for "web apps" with all performance, security, .. issues and all mecanisms/tricks/... required to c

Re:

[tepples]

If we take IRC to compare with your examples (Slack, Discord, ...): there is a IRCv3 initiative.

The front page of the IRCv3 project [ircv3.net] doesn't list any of the features of popular proprietary web-based chat services that users have come to expect:

• Viewing and searching chat history, so that participants in a conversation can maintain context across client disconnections and across users switching among devices, such as a desktop computer and a mobile phone. The "What We're Working On" section describes "Giving clients a standardised way to recognise, access and view chat history (provided by bouncers or se

Re:

[drinkypoo]

If you put aside the things you can only do with javascript you still leave an absolute shitstorm of sites which don't need it but use it anyway because the "web developers" don't understand CSS.

Stupid article

[bradley13]

First, third-party cookies are not the same as third-party tracking. Cookies are convenient, but there are other ways and means.

Second, to the extent that Google does manage to squash third-party tracking, it is only doing so in order to be in a better position to sell your information.

advertisers...which in turn can use Google-provided APIs to conduct their ads business

Yup, that's Google, looking out for their ad business. What a sad, sad company they have become.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

You complain about all the ways that advertisers track you, and then complain that Google is trying to stop them and force them to use carefully controlled APIs that are trivial to block.

Chrome comes full circle

[awwshit]

This just gives Google all of the power while cutting everyone else off. Chrome is a trojan if there ever was one.

Firefox FTW

Increase in people using adblocking / protection

[Tyr07]

This is what it is. Since people became aware of more adblocking with the youtube gig, then finding out you can block all the tracking and what not, google is trying to cut it off at it's head by providing tracking protection etc built in, so that they're only data pulling tools can keep operating and selling your data.

The current fear is if it gets out of control and everyone prevents 3rd party tracking and starts using other browsers with more protection or plugins that hide it. As an example, with duck duck go privacy protection + an ad blocker, youtubes adblock doesn't work. To be clear I'm not providing statistics to make claims that the risk is real or this is what is happening, this is just my opinion on what their fear is, so they're trying to get ahead of the game.

No more third party

[PPH]

Google wants a monopoly on tracking data.

Transparent as glass...

[Archangel_Azazel]

If you actually think Google is going to do literally ANYTHING to help you, I wish you a speedy healing from your lobotomy.
This is just to make them money. That's it. Fuck these assholes.

Squeezing the competition. And you.

[biggaijin]

Google's revenue is being reduced by all those third-party spies watching you and selling your information. Google wants to be the only one. It's not personal; it's just business.

What exactly does turn off mean?

[WaffleMonster]

If I visit a website that has portions of it hosted on domains other than the topsite and that thing sets a cookie what happens?

If I am reading the documentation correctly this isn't like Firefox where everything is partitioned by the topsite to prevent cross site tracking. They will simply begin to ignore third party cookies outright by default unless they explicitly set a partitioned attribute in the cookie header.

If so why? This just strikes me as unnecessarily reckless way to break shit for no reason

Oh dear, this even worse than I imagined.

[WaffleMonster]

Google has invented a scheme for sites to declare which other sites are part of their site so now different top sites can collude to effectively bypass cross site tracking restrictions.

I guess "privacy sandboxes" that conduct in-browser auctions for your attention... you know for your own privacy.... just wasn't enough for Google.

I blocked tracking by not using Chrome !!!

[bsdetector101]

Google/Chrome has a long history of tracking. Along with other reason, I don't use it !

Wait...what?? Am I reading this correctly?

[oogoliegoogolie]

Google can remotely change settings on your desktop's or smartphone's Chrome browser.

Wrong Headline

[allo]

The headline is wrong is both directions.
Google won't stop third-party tracking, but third-party cookies. And third-party tracking won't be stopped by not having third-party cookies. Do yourself a favor and actually read the cookie banners. They contain a lot of things that have nothing to do with cookies. They literally ask you if they can track you across devices and uses browser fingerprints.