Google’s GDPR Workaround • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#311

Post by kube-system » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:48 PM UTC

frogpelt wrote: post #224

mumblemumble wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most interesting thing to me about that McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit is how different the narrative is in popular circles vs. in legal circles. It's a little bit like in Rashomon . In popular circles, the story is framed in a way that does make the lawsuit look frivolous. But this is also a case that has made it into the legal textbooks as an example of corporate negligence that's clear-cut enough to use for d…

The reason the McDonald's lawsuit is framed that way in popular circles is because it is easily fits the mold for a frivolous lawsuit. 1. A woman willingly purchased hot coffee from McDonald's. 2. She spilled it on herself. 3. She sued McDonald's because of her injuries. Those three things are true no matter which circle you ask. A lot of people I talk to, even when given all of the facts of the case still consider i…

I have a feeling that's more to do with some people's reluctance to admit they were wrong about their initial conclusion, and so they cherry pick the facts to support their initial conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias

Possibly they would have drawn a different conclusion if given all the facts to being with. It's hard for many to admit they were wrong.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#312

Post by cameronbrown » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:49 PM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #269

hexadec wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very not legal, but I think the parent was saying these regulations are more onerous to small dev shops rather than Google and the fine for this will be minuscule. Hopefully companies will find paths to revenue that do not require selling out there users to this level, maybe by just having ad auctions without any identifying information at all.

This has always been absurd. Large companies have way more code and features in general which need to be checked for compliance, whereas small shops with small sets of data and features will have a far easier time complying with GDPR.

Even from the basic point of view: People go to Facebook, Amazon and Google daily. They accept the GDPR privacy policy once. Every single other website is bombarding users with popups, so there's a far greater chance users will click off from a startup's website.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#313

Post by rtbthrowaway » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:49 PM UTC

I've worked in the sector for years and honestly thought this was well documented, common knowledge: https://developers.google.com/authorized-buyers/rtb/cookie-g...

The only thing Google did in regards to GPRR was limit the number of parties in RTB they're including by default for syncing to a "trusted set" of parties.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#314

Post by nabnob » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:50 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #198

axaxs wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because literally anything is a fact, when worded the right way. In fact, that's most of what is wrong with the state of our 'News' today. Even little word changes can be used to sway public opinion (ex: 'victim' vs 'drunk woman', in a case an assault victim happened to have been drinking).

I confess that I've also never really understood why people are so outraged by the hypothetical it likely presence of actual shills: it's not like the population of non-shill commenters doesn't already produce every stupid and inane take possible. Shills can shift the composition of votes and comments away from a given board's biases (towards their preferred biases), but what does that change from the perspective of…

I think you're overestimating how much people think critically about the news or discussions online. A couple upvoted comments here and there, paid for by a massive corporation, can absolutely influence opinion.

I don't want to sound like I think some "smart" people are somehow immune to this - I think everyone, regardless of their education or intelligence, is susceptible to this kind of group-think.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#315

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:50 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#316

Post by jodrellblank » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:50 PM UTC

inlined wrote: post #107

inlined wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly mid-level employees would probably be the ones going to jail. The tech lead and/or PM sign off on compliance. I used to joke that one of my responsibilities was to put my freedom at stake. None of my products violate GDPR in any way I could conceive, but I’d hate to be handed down a mandate to do so. Both not accepting a project and not signing off on it are pretty bold moves.

Common retort: don’t just downvote me, tell me why I’m wrong. I’m a professional who had signed off on legal documents. Why would the buck not stop at me? That’s the way it works in architecture and other professions.

Common retort: don’t just downvote me, tell me why I’m wrong.

"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#317

Post by juanbyrge » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:51 PM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #272

juanbyrge wrote: post #137

Kind of a ratty move by Brave to leverage all of Google's tech in their browser (blink, v8, etc..) while simultaneously suing them as a PR tactic.

Google didn't have to open source it. They open sourced it knowing it would encourage adoption.

Regardless this is a very calculated PR move by Brave. And the privacy zealots and anti-google cadre on HN and elsewhere are eating this up. They are effectively giving Brave free advertising and playing right into their hands.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#318

Post by pornel » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:52 PM UTC

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…

You advertise on a website for widget fans. That's how it successfully worked for a long time.

The whole targeted advertising is to allow adtech companies to identify users of the "widget fans" site, and then advertise to the same people, but on another, cheaper site.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#319

Post by judge2020 » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:52 PM UTC

ishanjain28 wrote: post #288

bhaavan wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole intention of this clickbait article by Brave, without any technical details, is to sell it's browser.

Did you even read the article?

As listed elsewhere in the thread[0], this isn't something Google is trying to keep under wraps or even trying to obfuscate, so "uncovers" makes it seem like the Brave developer found their secret scheme to undermine GDPR. In reality, the program has been active for a long time (previously called Doubleclick Ad Exchange) and the article is only a call to attention for how this system works, while helpfully recommending the Brave browser.

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20878188

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#320

Post by carapace » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:52 PM UTC

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-...

> Fuchsia’s engineers wanted to create a secure platform, but the advertising team, at the time, believed that privacy “goes against everything [they] stood for.”