Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID

Post by labawi » Tue, Feb 04, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

scarejunba wrote: post #283

scoutt wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of giving my privacy away, I prefer software like anything that you have installed from a CD-ROM back in the 90's and didn't needed a weekly update. Games, 3D-Studio, Autocad (to name a few) were more complex than a web-browser ( a today's web-browser ) and didn't needed a weekly update or the hunger for user-requested features, let alone dialing home because . The world worked relatively fine without the up-…

Holy Jesus. Those things were chock full of security holes. If you used a web browser that arrived on a CD ROM you'd be advertising massive pwnability. In fact, you could easily simulate this by using last year's Firefox.

Post by joshuamorton » Tue, Feb 04, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

dessant wrote: post #466

d1zzy wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except it does not affect Google, because Google has this install ID to use both for tracking and preventing ad-fraud. So when Apple releases a privacy feature, that doesn't affect them as a business, we praise the feature or we say "except it doesn't affect Apple" and somehow try to argue how the feature is less valuable because of that?

Apple is not engaged in illegal data harvesting to gain a competitive advantage over other services in the same space. Google's collection of personal data with the x-client-data header without user consent is illegal under GDPR.

Post by shuckles » Tue, Feb 04, 2020, 9:41 PM UTC

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #434

calibas wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the whole point. Using any Google service means they can easily personally identify you, that's what the privacy policy should explain. That's their policy towards privacy, you don't have any. For some reason I can't fathom, you claim mentioning this in their privacy policy "would not have any purpose". Instead of honesty, their privacy policy is a wonder of public relations where it seems like they care deepl…

We disagree about the purpose of privacy policies. I believe that privacy policies should describe how data will be used, not how it could be used. I just don't think a policy describing how data could be used is very useful, because it's going to be the same for all services. Under this formulation, Google's policy is (presumably, lacking any data to the contrary) honest with respect to this value.

Post by dessant » Tue, Feb 04, 2020, 9:43 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #473

dessant wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is not engaged in illegal data harvesting to gain a competitive advantage over other services in the same space. Google's collection of personal data with the x-client-data header without user consent is illegal under GDPR.

This relies on the (unfounded) assumption that this pseudonymous ID is being used for tracking purposes and that Google is actively lying about it.

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Feb 04, 2020, 9:47 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #473

dessant wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is not engaged in illegal data harvesting to gain a competitive advantage over other services in the same space. Google's collection of personal data with the x-client-data header without user consent is illegal under GDPR.

This relies on the (unfounded) assumption that this pseudonymous ID is being used for tracking purposes and that Google is actively lying about it.