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

421–430 of 629 posts

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#421

Post by joefkelley »

I'm an engineer who has worked on ad systems like this and I'm really struggling to make sense of this article - what hope does a layman have?

Here's my understanding: Google runs real-time bidding ad auctions by sending anonymized profiles to marketers, who bid on those impressions. The anonymous id used in each auction was the same for each bidder, which is in violation of GDPR. If Google were to send different ids for each bidder, it would be ok? Is this correct?

Why would it matter that the bidders are able to match up the IDs with each other, aren't they all receiving the same profile anyway? Wouldn't privacy advocates consider the sending of the profiles at all an issue?

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#422

Post by ori_b »

irq-1 wrote: post #359
ori_b wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No it isn't. Please tell me how you achieve security without storing hashes in a DB? I bet the DB is small enough that you could default to just downloading it and syncing on your machine.

256 byte hash x 10000 packages x 10 package versions = 25mb That's a conservative estimate, and if you try to sync only what's needed you're no better off then not-syncing.

Yeah, I've got 25 megs of disk space.

If you try syncing the whole thing incrementally (rsync style) all you leak is the frequency of your updates

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#423

Post by drusepth »

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…

The alternative is to spend hundreds of hours finding widget-related websites, trying to contact the owner(s), negotiating what ad spots are available, what ads are acceptable to run, and what pricing/terms will work for both parties, then managing that relationship over time to ensure ads are actually being displayed, being paid on time, contracts renewed, etc.

It's definitely possible, but you're just doing everything manually that ad networks do for you. Whether that is worth your time (or worth it to hire someone to do this kind of thing for you...) is up to you.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#424

Post by DamnYuppie »

nitwit005 wrote: post #351
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…

McDonnalds didn't hire any internet shills or anything like that. The media bought into their lawyers public claims about the case without bothering to investigate anything, and the TV talk show circuits picked it up. Unfortunately, you often don't need to try particularly hard to get the media to repeat false claims.

Especially when you have one of the largest advertising budgets in the world!

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#425

Post by eitland »

0xffff2 wrote: post #370
eitland wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is actually relevant because they are matching the ads to the user, only it happens by a proxy variable which is the site you are visiting.

The original question was "Is there any way to improve the matching of ads to the viewer without violating their privacy?" Your answer is that we should match something other than the user, that happens to correlate with user interests. That is, by definition, not matching ads to viewers.

In think either our idea of "by definition" or something else differs.

Viewers get ads matching their interests, as proven by the fact that they are on a related website. I don't see how that isn't "matching ads to viewers"?

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#426

Post by close04 »

panarky wrote: post #135
tboyd47 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean how there are somehow always commenters in every topic ready to leap to the defense of China and major US tech companies?

Yes, definitely. And there are also paid propagandists who attack Google at every opportunity, while ignoring far worse behavior by Google's competitors. I'd really like to know what percentage of online content is authentic, and what percentage is paid astroturf to shape public opinion by business interests and ideological/political campaigns.

> while ignoring far worse behavior by Google's competitors.

That’s because whataboutism ia rarely an excuse, if ever. At best it could offer some context. But given the sheer scale of Google’s operations there's not much context to add. They have both the power to do everything on a massive scale: both the violations and the subsequent “opinion shaping”.

The only reason mentioning a competitor would be relevant in many Google related topics is as a distraction. I don’t have to care about the competitors to be 100% correct when attacking Google.

On the other hand I got downvoted into oblivion even when comparing Google to competitors with undisputed data. My subjective experience is that the pro-Google camp is doing more overtime on the interwebs. And it makes sense that they would be more organized since they are working under one umbrella with more or less one voice. I find it hard to believe that all anti-Google parties would manage to reach anything close to the same level of organization and alignment of goals.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#427

Post by dang »

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…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20877309 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#428

Post by Aperocky »

bhaavan wrote: post #233
sam1r wrote: post #32

Just learned about Brave for the first time. Pretty neat stuff.

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

Yeah, it's so annoying. WHAT PERSONAL DATA? The entire article is basically a rant about "personal data can be leaked" without any examples. Names? Browser Habits? What is it?

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#429

Post by dang »

NullPrefix wrote: post #49

>I was branded as a 'privacy nut' Companies do actually employ shills to go on forums and try to sway public opinion. They call them something like public advocates, doesn't change the idea though.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20877072.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#430

Post by nitwit005 »

DamnYuppie wrote: post #424
nitwit005 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

McDonnalds didn't hire any internet shills or anything like that. The media bought into their lawyers public claims about the case without bothering to investigate anything, and the TV talk show circuits picked it up. Unfortunately, you often don't need to try particularly hard to get the media to repeat false claims.

Especially when you have one of the largest advertising budgets in the world!

Contacting reporters is basically free, and they're usually happy to get stories from corporations. I doubt they had to spend much of anything.

Besides, there's little point in spending more than you'd lose in a settlement on a PR campaign to avoid the settlement.

Post reply on HN