Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s GDPR Workaround

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 629 posts

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#301

Post by amelius »

komali2 wrote: post #254
amelius wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if I'm just showing them a random website. The problem with targeted ads is, they show up at random websites.

I dunno man. This reminds me of the time that someone at defcon said they found a vulnerability in my last company's product because it flashes a WiFi password to an iot device instead of making a user type it in. "What if we capture the flashes and steal the password?" Well, if you're positioned to capture the flashes, you're definitely positioned to just watch me type it in...

Would you be ok with it if your browsers at home, in the office and on your mobile phone always showed your bank balance on the top of the screen in a large font?

I assume most users would not. But they would be ok with their bank balance being shown if they specifically opened their bank website.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#302

Post by unityByFreedom »

notatoad wrote: post #248

can somebody explain in simple terms what Brave is actually accusing Google of doing? The article seems to be written in a way that matches the language of the GDPR legistlation, instead of language actually meant to be read by people, and i can't figure out what the "workaround" actually is.

Agreed, this is so wordy, this is what I got,

> Google claims to prevent the many companies ... from combining their profiles about those visitors

> Brave’s new evidence reveals that Google allowed not only one additional party, but many, to match with Google identifiers. The evidence further reveals that Google allowed multiple parties to match their identifiers for the data subject with each other.

BTW, many comments in here seem quick to agree w/this headline given how buried the details are. If someone has better detail, please share it.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#303

Post by ChoGGi »

colordrops wrote: post #249
DrScientist wrote: post #168

Are Google engineers quietly working on alternatives? What is this repo? https://github.com/PolymerLabs/arcs Also there was an interesting story a while back about a clash between advertising and the Fuchsia engineering team https://9to5google.com/2018/07/20/fuchsia-friday-respecting-...

What is Arcs

It seems to be 'an open ecosystem for privacy-preserving, AI-first computing'?

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#304

Post by nindalf »

stonogo wrote: post #164
nindalf wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On HN it is taken as gospel that any information sent to a server will absolutely compromise your privacy. If anyone points out that the information is trivial or useless the rebuttal is instant - it can be cross referenced with other sources to build a complete profile of you. If you want to know which Go modules I use, go check out my github. They're listed right there in import statements. If I'm hacking on a proj…

> Literally what else could that man have done? He could have not sent all build-time network accesses to Google by default. It's that simple.

No it isn't. Please tell me how you achieve security without storing hashes in a DB? The default is only for those who'd prefer not to run their own DB. You are welcome to run your own DB if you want.

Why are you so upset that other people will be using a feature you obviously won't? Why are you upset when this leaks literally no info that your github repo doesn't already?

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#305

Post by bluesign »

I checked the sample log provided.

Below is the google_gid for different publishers, there is no proof of overlap, they have different google_gid for same person. Which is exactly what google describes. [1]

I don't understand what Brave claims.

  d.agkn.com          CAESEP-S3Zs5f0_kq11XTCZP_mE
  id.rlcdn.com          CAESEPpf2T4-2AsAR_4rer3RfNs
  image6.pubmatic.com          CAESEB9H3qdV26kxEiz-BJ_TY-M
  pippio.com          CAESEJyqG1Pg1j-_scqW8kDzTkg
  token.rubiconproject.com         CAESEE1DyZ245WggYaQZEWpQWI8
  us-u.openx.net          CAESEPIJ9jHcY2j4jK3-DPmfar4
[1] https://developers.google.com/authorized-buyers/rtb/cookie-g...

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#306

Post by dumbfounder »

mfer wrote: post #145

Free startup idea: An ad service that did things simply without any targeted stalking involved.

One big problem is that ad fraud is rampant. Knowing a person is really seeing the ad is very important, which tracking helps you confirm to a certain degree.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#307

Post by jeremyjh »

bcaa7f3a8bbc wrote: post #139
rvz wrote: post #8

It's really funny to see that yesterday, I was branded as a 'privacy nut' after the release of Android 10 as I was concerned about the privacy issues that are in Android. Then the Go modules proxy issue around the Go Programming language that raised suspicions about tracking usage statistics around downloading modules turned on by default without any consent and now this. I think there are some folks at Google who ha…

Different types of Hacker News article trends to attract slightly nonoverlap different subgroups of people. You'll sometimes find different sentiments over the same topic under, e.g. U.S. politics, silicon valley startups, cryptography, or urban life.

I’ve noticed this as well. Would love to see some analytics on this.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#308

Post by 0xffff2 »

rpastuszak wrote: post #234
fmajid wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The matching is in itself a violation of privacy, at least if you interpret the right of privacy as "The right to be left alone", as former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis put it.

I think that’s incorrect, relevant ads could be displayed based purely on the site content, without user info attached to ad calls. We’ve been there.

True and irrelevant. If you're displaying ads based on site content, you are matching ads to the site content, not to the viewer.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#309

Post by PJDK »

idlerig wrote: post #192

This is exactly what happened in the McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit. It wasn't some "Karen" who hit a bump while driving. It was an elderly woman (in her 70s, IIRC), sitting in the passenger seat. McDonalds already had complaints (and some lawsuits) over the (significantly higher than industry standard) temperature of their coffee, so this wasn't exactly out of the blue. She ended up with 3rd degree burns on her leg…

Curious how this one has changed on the internet.

From a UK perspective I'd always thought of it as a case of crazy pay-out. Why does this one women get several million dollars (although googling reveals this number went down a bit on appeal)? Especially if others had a similar experience. Either there should be a limit on the temperature of hot drinks, or there shouldn't.

The fact a warning is deemed adequate seems weird too, people will actively try and avoid spilling a stone cold cup of coffee on their lap!

It feels to me like the internet moved from shilling for big burger to shilling for big law firm.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#310

Post by [deleted] »

teamspirit wrote: post #187

I think the HN community, and most consumers, tend to look at things from only one angle. Imagine you start work at some small shop that manufacturers widgets for consumers. What would you do when you have to advertise your product? You'd have to turn to Google is a similar company. Are there any real alternatives? (I am asking because I really want to know) I say this because I am in this position now. I have to fig…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN