Google’s GDPR Workaround • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#541

Post by pezo1919 » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 12:54 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #24

Sean1708 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by absolute and relative, I think the law is already relative: > The maximum fine under the GDPR is up to 4% of annual global turnover or €20 million – whichever is greater – for organisations that infringe its requirements. From here: https://www.itgovernance.co.uk/dpa-and-gdpr-penalties

In context, "relatively bigger" would mean something like a progressive tax bracket. $20MM up to $500MM rev, 4% up to $1BB rev, 5% up to $2BB rev, 6% up to $5BB rev, etc... A straight 4% would be absolutely bigger, but relatively the same (once beyond $500M).

This is a good idea. However what about phantom businesses which commit the crime and would not have real revenue.

My problem is with fines that they don't really force the PEOPLE in the businesses to play fair.

What about required & [RESPONSIBLE] roles and jail?

I am asking that in general because I am fed up with our business-entities made world where committing a crime is basically RECOMMENDED if the numbers and percentages say so.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#542

Post by CodeMage » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 12:55 AM UTC

filoleg wrote: post #539

girvo wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should we give ad-tech their one millionth chance to "do the right thing"? They've proven time and time again they cannot be trusted.

it isn't about giving ad-tech any chance of anything, it is about websites that are liked and used by people (most of whom have either no means or no desire to support those websites with money directly) being able to sustain themselves in order to exist.

That's pretty much a false dichotomy: a site must either support itself via ads, or cease to exist.

There are other ways to get money to support your work, and if those ways are too painful right now, that's just an opportunity for disruption. Even better, it's an opportunity to prove that disruption doesn't have to be exploitative.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#543

Post by harry8 » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:29 AM 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…

Look for genuine, verified success marketing stories for people in similar positions and follow similar strategies.

I've personally never heard of a success story for what you describe that involves paying google. But maybe they exist and they're just keeping it quiet?

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#544

Post by msbarnett » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:32 AM UTC

filoleg wrote: post #539

girvo wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should we give ad-tech their one millionth chance to "do the right thing"? They've proven time and time again they cannot be trusted.

it isn't about giving ad-tech any chance of anything, it is about websites that are liked and used by people (most of whom have either no means or no desire to support those websites with money directly) being able to sustain themselves in order to exist.

If only there were other models for ad sales, say ones that were successfully used for decades prior to the advent of the internet and ubiquitous surveillance, that could be used instead of said ubiquitous surveillance...

But no. The internet enabled vast, invasive user tracking, therefore vast, invasive user tracking is the only conceivable way to sell advertising.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#545

Post by pnw_hazor » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:43 AM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #400

eitland wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I discussed GDPR with you before and based on your answer here and maxidorius answer to you I will not accept anything you say about the GDPR unless it is obvious or has references I can verify.

You're suggesting that hospitals would be allowed to sell patient info to anybody willing to pay, as long as they have a contract?

In the US, HIPAA would apply to individually identifiable health information. HIPAA Providers share information with other HIPAA-covered entities all the time under contracts where the associate entities (non-providers) agree to comply with HIPAA privacy rules.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#546

Post by chii » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:55 AM UTC

aeorgnoieang wrote: post #449

joefkelley wrote: post #421

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…

> 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? I would guess that yes, they're all receiving – _from Google_ – the "same profile" but they also are collecting additional info that they can then share with each other and, because they can match profiles exactly, they can access each other's info about specific people. > Wouldn't p…

If it's the different advertisers who are going to share info, then why aren't they responsible for their own adherence to GDPR, rather than Google?

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#547

Post by phnofive » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 2:08 AM UTC

gtallen1187 wrote: post #502

I'm glad this story was reported, and I'm thankful to the author for putting in the work required to report this story. But after the first five paragraphs, the author's shameless, repetitive self-promotion and insistence on referring to himself in the third person almost made this unreadable. The headline was enough to pique my curiosity to explore Brave's product offering. Unfortunately, actually reading the articl…

Welcome to any article sponsored by Brave. Comments on such posts are a reliable place to read the latest spin from the Brave team.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#548

Post by pfortuny » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 2:08 AM UTC

bluesign wrote: post #486

mintplant wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This log [0], right? Did you miss in the article that it's the `google_push` identifier that's being used for syncing between adtech companies? If you search for it (AHNF13KKSmBxGD6oDK9GEw5O0kvgmFa3qM30zpNaKl72Og), you can see it being included in requests to lots of different adtech firms' domains. [0] https://brave.com/wp-content/uploads/files_2019-9-2/sample_p...

There is unfortunately no way to prevent that part. BidRequest Data [0] and Request Time is already enough to fingerprint the user. "Google prohibits multiple buyers from joining their match tables." part is not technical, it is contract based. [0] Sample Data from Bid Request ip: "F\303\006" user_agent: "Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 7.1.1; Pixel XL Build/NOF26V) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/56.0.2924…

Like stopping? I do not do that and am surviving last I looked.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#549

Post by jeffk_teh_haxor » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 2:11 AM UTC

trpc wrote: post #523

juanbyrge wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To be honest this is the only useful comment in this entire thread and that's why you're getting mass downvoted by the online army of Brave shills (they are employing shills all around 4chan and reddit too). Brave has been repeatedly exploiting this website (or maybe YC just has business interest in it?) by attacking the company that made the product Brave contributed nothing to but theming and rebranding it and sell…

Spawn a cryptotoken (BAT, in this case) and you're rewarded with true believer shill army. Pumping their coin and FUDing the competition. https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#550

Post by afarviral » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 2:17 AM UTC

At this point I'm just waiting for some of these tech companies to drop their analytics and drop targeted advertising, and just ask users for their advertising preferences or do advertising the traditional way... why do we HAVE to have targeted advertising? It's either hit or miss, or too creepy anyway...