Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 642 posts

Re: Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID

#621

Post by BLO716 »

GrayShade wrote: post #96
BLO716 wrote: post #62

With that said, one can simply filter out these analytics with a c:\Windows\Systems32\Drivers\etc\hosts -> pointing to 0.0.0.0 or PiHole solution ( https://pi-hole.net/ ), yes? I mean, this is probably not the holistic solution, but this is why we have a firewall, vpn, antivirus, filters to just keep DNS in check, yes?

So are you suggesting people should DNS block google.com and gmail.com?

There are certain sub-domains that block certain things that keep most of the bad guys at bay, but to some extent yes. This is a fringe case of those activities, but being paranoid is not a bad thing these days, considering the level of red team activity and bad actors probing your network / computer / devices.

Short of putting on the tin foil hat, mind you.

Re: Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID

#622

Post by hitpointdrew »

Not shocking. I never trusted Chrome, and never switched over to it. I never understood that Firefox hate. I never thought it was "slow" like so many complaints I have seen. Apparently Firefox is fast and amazing again, I certainly think it is better than it was a several years ago, but again even several years ago I didn't ever think it was slow.

Re: Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID

#623

Post by owaislone »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #48
owaislone wrote: post #36

I visited my family a couple of weeks ago and was shocked when my father told me that his phone 'received' some of our photos. I checked and a huge chunk of whatsapp photos that were backed up by my wife's phone had ended up in my dad's Google Photos account. I discounted it as my wife accidentally sharing the whatsapp folder with my dad but now I'm not so sure.

Yup, that's one of the issues you'll get with interlinked accounts; in this case, Whatsapp backs up / stores photos automatically to your phone's photo gallery, and said photo gallery is automatically synchronized with the cloud. I don't know exactly what's going on with your wife's / your father-in-law's accounts though, are they sharing Google accounts, photo albums, or were the photos shared in the same whatsapp g…

> are they sharing Google accounts, photo albums, or were the photos shared in the same whatsapp group?

None of these. They don't share any accounts. I don't share any account with my father either. Me and my wife use the shared galley feature. The photos that ended up on my fathers phone were shared by me and my wife with each other on whatsapp. I suspect either mine or my wife's gallery somehow "leaked" into my fathers even though none of the accounts have any connections AFAICT. Probably we clicked some share button somewhere accidentally but I couldn't find any shared galleries on any of our phones.

Re: Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID

#624

Post by RonanTheGrey »

om2 wrote: post #599

I'm surprised this hasn't gotten any mainstream tech press attention. Chrome's Privacy Whitepaper describes a number of privacy-questionable nonstandard headers which are only sent to Google services. Just try searching for X- here: https://www.google.com/chrome/privacy/whitepaper.html And for ease of reading, a few others: > On Android, your location will also be sent to Google via an X-Geo HTTP request header if Go…

Holy rotten metal batman... those are pretty bad. Why in the world isn't everyone up in arms over this?....

Re: Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID

#625

Post by RonanTheGrey »

mc3 wrote: post #467
xfs wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First I thought reading /etc/machine-id would be expected if Chrome uses D-bus or pulseaudio libraries which depend on D-bus, and /etc/machine-id is part of D-bus. But no, they really use it for tracking purposes. And in a sick twist they have this comment for it: std::string BrowserDMTokenStorageLinux::InitClientId() { // The client ID is derived from /etc/machine-id // (https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/…

> which is why we hash it first and then encode it in base64 before transmitting it. This made me chuckle. "As per the rules, we'll put on a boxing glove before we punch your lights out". You wont get privacy, but at least there is some security!

> As per the rules, we'll put on a boxing glove before we punch your lights out

This also made me chuckle

Re: Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID

#626

Post by JdeBP »

carlsborg wrote: post #608
JdeBP wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a correct description. * http://jdebp.uk./Softwares/nosh/guide/commands/machine-id.xm...

True, more precisely - 16 bytes, 32 hex characters. Your link is in agreement "The machine ID is usually generated from a random source during system installation or first boot and stays constant for all subsequent boots." And See https://wiki.debian.org/MachineId at least one distro uses it for the DHCP ID.

"At least one distro" is not correct either. It's used by systemd-networkd, specifically.

* http://jdebp.uk./Softwares/nosh/guide/commands/machine-id.xm...

Re: Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID

#627

Post by golergka »

bsharitt wrote: post #198

Everybody imagine going back 15 years and tell yourself that you're using a web browser made by the parent company of DoubleClick. Your 15 year ago self would think you're a moron (assuming that 15 years ago you were old enough to know what DoubleClick was).

Do you remember what browsers were like when Chrome came out? I switched from Firefox the day it came out, and was very happy with performance and UI.

Re: Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID

#628

Post by JohnFen »

shadowgovt wrote: post #463
JohnFen wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you'll never get a web browser with more features than the ones released in the '90s I would actively prefer a web browser that lacks the features added since the '90s.

That's understandable, but it isn't what most people want---developers or users alike. Browsers aren't just thin-clients to support HTTP protocol and HTML rendering. They've grown to adopt a new distributed computing paradigm, not unlike UNIX and its descendants grew to support a new multi-user-cum-multi-process paradigm. The things web development offers---location agnosticism, platform agnosticism, combined multime…

> it isn't what most people want---developers or users alike.

I'm fully aware of this, and this, at heart, is why I'm certain that the day will come when I can no longer use the web at all.

Re: Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID

#629

Post by userbinator »

commoner wrote: post #596
userbinator wrote: post #546

As long as web developers continue to create (app-)sites that only work in the latest versions of Chrome(and Chromium-ish) browsers, giving users little effective choice over what browsers they can use, this sort of abusive behaviour will continue. The sort of "feature-racing" that Google engages in is ultimately harmful for the open web. Mozilla struggles to keep up, Opera surrendered a while ago, and more recently,…

This proposal would not accomplish what you intend. By slowing the adoption of open web technologies, developers and users would lean more heavily on mobile apps, which are also under Google's control considering Android's huge market share. Developers who want to level the playing field need to develop sites that fully support Firefox and other browsers that are not based on Chromium. Users who want to see a more op…

I'm talking about the vast majority of things people use websites for, which do not need a webapp much less a mobile app.

Re: Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID

#630

Post by numlock86 »

userbinator wrote: post #609
numlock86 wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] this sort of abusive behaviour will continue. Can you elaborate what exactly is abusive behavior? > [...] reliance on hostile browsers, [...] What exactly is a hostile browser?

What is mentioned in the title of this article.

What article? The link is a github issue. And it's not like you referenced anything of that anyway. It's more like it just triggered you to output a general rant. So again: Care to elaborate?
Post reply on HN