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

561–570 of 629 posts

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#561

Post by filoleg »

CodeMage wrote: post #542
filoleg wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not saying that it has to be ads only. If there comes a disruptive alternative revenue model that allows all those websites to self-support themselves, I will be one of the first people to jump the ship and advocate for the ban of ads in favor of that new model.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#562

Post by bduerst »

CodeMage wrote: post #542
filoleg wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are entire markets that cannot be accessed by publishers unless they subsidize content with ads. That is not a false dichotomy, that is a market requirement.

Not every website is the WSJ or Bloomberg, which cater to markets that are willing to pay for content.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#563

Post by ahje »

luckylion wrote: post #240
gmueckl wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, a data processor is any entity that collected personal data gets passed on to and where it is processed as part of the business arrangement. An ad network that receives personal data is definitely a data processor.

> No, a data processor is any entity that collected personal data gets passed on to and where it is processed as part of the business arrangement. I'm relatively sure that there's another part: it's data processing for the client (here: Google) and the data cannot be used for other purposes. In this case, they don't process data for Google, they process it in cooperation with Google for the ad-buyers. Google also doe…

The 'client' in this case is the individual web sites that use Google's ad solutions -- not Google itself. It's the same thing with businesses' Facebook pages -- Facebook simply acts as a data processor in that case.

This is why nothing will be done about this. Sure, we might see a few smaller businesses fined, but the vast majority of sites using Google for ads will simply slip under the radar, while Google simply puts the blame on the site owners.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#565

Post by Ayesh »

trpc wrote: post #473
crtlaltdel wrote: post #462

brave is incentivized to push this narrative, accurate or inaccurate as it may be. i am not ad-tech guru, nor digital marketer. i do know that brave's entire premise hangs on traditional ad-tech strategy remaining static, consumer sentiment around "big tech" to sour and a groundswell of "privacy focused consumers" to materialize. that groundswell is their identified target market for their product.

What's funnier is that Brave """product""" is nothing more but a theme over Chrome that any 12 yo kid can do in 2 hours, an adblocker based on FOSS blacklists and some compilation flags that prevent Google from enabling its own server features and tracking system and redirecting the tracking system to their own servers. Yet their entire PR and marketing is based on "Google is evil!". In any other industry this scam w…

I also see how Brave likes to thrive on anti-Google pro-privacy camp and I personally pick Firefox over Brave any day if the week.

There is de-Googled Chromium OS project, but Brave takes a few steps sideways by making further changes such as proxying location services, safe browsing API, etc. I doubt a 12 y/o could compile it though, let alone in 2 hours.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#566

Post by Ayesh »

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.

It's also written in third-party speech, with emphasis on spooky details rather than technical details.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#567

Post by pgeorgi »

TheArcane wrote: post #358
gnud wrote: post #285

Is it really a "workaround" if they're just breaking the law? I mean, if the allegations are correct, Google didn't find any loophole, they're just hiding the fact that they're selling person identifiers.

EU should raise the 4% annual turnover rule to 10%. Google doesn't seem to be deterred

GDPR enforcement is 15 months old and regulators aren't the fastest bunch. They're also cooperation based as the goal isn't to serve fines but to ensure compliance: If you cooperate, you might get away with no fine at all (depending on circumstances).

Also the 4% global revenue fine wasn't exercised yet because it's the maximum fine, and there needs to be room for escalation: hard to serve a bigger punch if you're already at the maximum.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#568

Post by matempo33 »

mintplant wrote: post #373
bluesign wrote: post #305

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.ru…

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...

You are implying that this mechanism is already used by adtech providers, we have no proof. Those players are often competitors that are not working together so they won’t share their user data (not a user identifier, only a “page load” identifier). If they want to sync their user ids (because one is buying inventory from the other), they can launch a cookie sync between themselves (same process as with google_gid, persistant user identifier, much more efficient)

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#570

Post by a_imho »

drusepth wrote: post #436
a_imho wrote: post #340

Google has been violating GDPR from day one.

That's not surprising seeing as how GDPR was pretty much drafted explicitly against Google.

That's just your bias and no grounds for violating it. In fact, if it was true the more reason to comply. But it is obviously false, seeing Google can still do whatever they wish without serious repercussions.
Post reply on HN