Google Chrome To Continue To Use Third-Party Cookies in Major Reversal

An anonymous reader shares a report: In a shocking development, Google won't roll out a new standalone prompt for third-party cookies in Chrome. It's a move that amounts to a U-turn on the Chrome team's earlier updated approach to deprecating third-party cookies, announced in July last year, with the latest development bound to cause ructions across the ad tech ecosystem. "We've made the decision to maintain our current approach to offering users third-party cookie choice in Chrome, and will not be rolling out a new standalone prompt for third-party cookies," wrote Anthony Chavez, vp Privacy Sandbox at Google, in a blog post published earlier today (April 22). "Users can continue to choose the best option for themselves in Chrome's Privacy and Security Settings." However, it's not the end of Privacy Sandbox, according to Google, as certain initiatives incubated within the project are set to continue, such as its IP Protection for Chrome Incognito users, which will be rolled out in Q3.

What's shocking?

[el84]

Google subsidiary acts to protect key revenue stream for parent company. This is why I have never used chrome - the buggers simply can't be trusted.

Re:

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Are you using Android?

Re:

[SumDog]

You can use a 3rd party ROM line LineageOS and not install GApps (F-droid + Auora if you really need stuff from the store). Sure it's still using a Chrome engine for apps that require it, but you can use Fennec (Firefox fork without the Mozilla bullshit) and UBlock Origin. You can also use Ad Away for additional DNS level ad blocking.

So this was always a antitrust issue

[rsilvergun]

The removal of third party cookies wasn't really a problem for Google's own companies because they have so much browser share and they can put things in the browser to get around it but it did hurt their competitors.

Re:

[DarkOx]

^THIS^

While there certainly are legitimate privacy concerns around third party cookies, Google's interest in the subject was hardly the public good.

The entire thing was about making it more difficult for their competitors to track ad impressions and user behavior with as much accuracy as Google via their other telemetry.

It was about Google being able to charge both higher rates for ad placement, and charge more for confirmed impressions and click troughs. This is slashdot though were people will write a wal

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

They were replacing cookies with Topics, where the browser does the work of figuring out what kind of ads you are most vulnerable to. It suited Google because they could target based on full browsing history and without the privacy issues that cookies or uploading history would cause. It hurt competitors by forcing them to a level playing field with Google, instead of being able to use every privacy raping trick in the book to gain an advantage.

Overall it would have been good for the internet and user priva

Re:

[phantomfive]

And that's just the most obvious stuff. If you look at Google's ideas like the shadow dom, they've put a lot of weird things into the browser.

Re:

[Pinky's Brain]

Sure, I think this is more about preserving market share than profiling though. The advertisers in the US already have learned to live with the work arounds.

Lots of companies probably mandate Chrome so their antiquated sites aren't broken by Safari. When people need to use it for their job on their iPhone, they are more likely to stick with it.

Re:

[thegarbz]

Google subsidiary acts to protect key revenue stream for parent company.

At no point was any revenue stream at risk. The phase out of Chrome's third party cookies was supposed to coincide with the Privacy Sandbox API (which is the opposite of what it says in the name) which allows advertising partners to track you wherever you may be.

Whatever...

[jamesL70]

First thing I do on a new install of Chrome is disable 3rd party cookies.

Re:Whatever...

[Valgrus Thunderaxe]

First thing I do with a new install of Chrome is download Firefox and UBO.

Re:

[SumDog]

Mozilla has a bunch of tracking by default now. I use the Librewolf fork on desktop and Fennec on Android + UBlock Origin on both. If you want to stay on FF, there are some custom userscripts out there you can add to disable all the Mozilla tracking. Mozilla has fallen far from it's original values.

Re:

[markdavis]

It doesn't have a "bunch" it has "some". And you can turn if off with a few clicks on one screen. It is clearly labeled, and the setting is retained "forever". And, unlike Chrome, is completely open-source, so anyone can examine exactly what it is doing.

You do not need to use "custom userscripts" for full control over Firefox settings.

Security

[sunderland56]

Welcome to the future..... we're closer to having flying cars than we are to having a secure browser.

Re:

[thegarbz]

Nothing is stopping you from blocking 3rd party cookies today, right now, with the software you have already installed.

Privacy Badger

[jmccue]

Just use Privacy Badger:

https://www.eff.org/pages/priv... [eff.org]

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

You don't even need to do that. You can turn off 3rd party cookies in Chrome, it's just on by default. There is no indication that the setting is going away, Google has just given up making it the default for everyone.

Chrome is dead for other reasons, mainly the lack of full-fat uBlock Origin support.

Not a mystery

[CEC-P]

I bet what really went down was "Firefox did whaaaaat? Recording everything they type? Even more people stopped using it? Manifest v3 my taint, let's do more monopoly abuse shit and make the web experience even shittier!"

Manifest v3 next?

[devslash0]

I'm a bit disappointed. I've been looking forward to 3rd party cookies disappearing from the surface of the Earth, and I think I'm not the only one. Useless piece of... dough.

On the other hand, what we really need to bring back is the Blocking Request API. Something that is actually useful but been recklessly removed against our will.

Re:

[jomcty]

Hear, hear!

Google sold us

[backslashdot]

I just hope they got paid handsomely for it, I'd hate it if they sold me and my data for cheap. I am worth a lot. Just knowing that I buy Cheetos Puffs is valuable information.

EU Regulations and Anti-Trust did this

[aldousd666]

The EU pushed google to keep third party cookies. they claimed that eliminating them was squashing the competitors ability to compete with their privacy sandbox.

Re:

[thegarbz]

This is a good thing. 3rd party cookies are trivially blocked, unlike whatever Chrome Privacy Sandbox API (yes it includes login-in and credential management) would be forced on users.

IP Protection for Chrome Incognito users

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is... exactly nothing? With all the Chromium-based browsers out there don't you think it's odd that Google Chrome is the only browser with an Incognito/Privacy mode that still shares cookies and local/session storage among tabs and windows?

For example: if you use Firefox, Safari or any other Chromium-based browser in Incognito/Privacy mode to login to YouTube and then open a link in a new tab or window it doesn't know who you are and you'll have to login again. This is how it should be. Not Chrome, th

remember the change

[wbpeckham]

Reason 2647 to avoid using Google Chrome!

Remember they used to have the slogan "Do No Evil"?

Now they act like it is "Do Evil"!

Resist!

Re:

[thegarbz]

Keeping 3rd party cookies is objectively better than what they were replacing it with. 3rd party cookies are trivial to block without breaking the internet. Privacy Sandbox would not have been.