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

Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 195 posts

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#181

Post by pacamara619 »

crazygringo wrote: post #152
wegs wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not quite how the law works. If I tell you to get off of my property, and you stand on my lawn, you're trespassing, even if I didn't put up a military-grade wall. Or if I have a basic chain link fence, and you climb over it, you're clearly trespassing in situations where without the fence, if you were to incidentally walk across my lawn, you'd be okay. The point of digital trespass laws is very similar. Just b…

> What's damaging in this case is that Google created the signalling mechanism, gave it to users, and then intentionally chose to circumvent it. Absolutely not. Incognito mode, as in every browser, means you're history isn't recorded on your machine . And as GP said, Chrome even explicitly explains your ISP or websites may still track you. And Chrome isn't doing anything to circumvent it. Intent and reasonableness he…

Pretty sure he meant DNT and not Incognito Mode.

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#182

Post by jedberg »

nojito wrote: post #178
jedberg wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox containers does the same thing with a lot less work. If you get the multi-account-containers extension and the temporary containers extension, you won't have to log back into everything all the time but will still get isolation. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-con... https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account... Edit: See below with a warning about using this with pr…

Containers don’t stop finger printing though. I.e if you use the same container to read news, google knows your news preferences.

But neither would changing Chrome profiles.

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#183

Post by jlbnjmn »

up2you wrote: post #173
jlbnjmn wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Saying that "Google Analytics is NOT the website I visit" is the same as saying "React is NOT the UI I'm using" Uh, no. Using a web framework is very different from using a third party data collection tool that gives the third party access to the data. Unless the React devs are also tracking user behavior on third party sites. But that would be a separate lawsuit. Full disclosure: I buy ads from Google.

Incognito Mode states plainly that it DOES NOT prevent the website you are visiting from tracking you. Another commenter said that this wording implies that it DOES prevent Google Analytics, since it is not part of the site. My argument was that drawing a distinction between a "site" and modules that are part of that "site" but are from other parties is dubious (also, likely impossible).

Google is not the website being visited, and if it's not a big deal, then why doesn't it say, "Google will still track you using third party analytics, font requests, ad pixels, single sign on, and recaptcha"?

I mean, if nobody really cares, why not be more direct about it?

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#184

Post by jlbnjmn »

joshuamorton wrote: post #177
bubblethink wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The confusion is that google makes chrome. Plain and simple. A feature (incognito) with a bypass (analytics) is a non-feature since they are both done by the same company. So the practical solution is for them to be not done by the same company.

What's the legal basis for this claim? If you start from the axiom that Google should be broken up, this is a reasonable conclusion. But punishing a company for keeping separate products separate would actually undermine most anti-monopoly law.

How is combining tracking data keeping the products separate?

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#185

Post by joshuamorton »

jlbnjmn wrote: post #184
joshuamorton wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the legal basis for this claim? If you start from the axiom that Google should be broken up, this is a reasonable conclusion. But punishing a company for keeping separate products separate would actually undermine most anti-monopoly law.

How is combining tracking data keeping the products separate?

What tracking data is being "combined"? I see nothing suggesting that data from chrome is combined with anything else.

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#186

Post by bubblethink »

joshuamorton wrote: post #177
bubblethink wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The confusion is that google makes chrome. Plain and simple. A feature (incognito) with a bypass (analytics) is a non-feature since they are both done by the same company. So the practical solution is for them to be not done by the same company.

What's the legal basis for this claim? If you start from the axiom that Google should be broken up, this is a reasonable conclusion. But punishing a company for keeping separate products separate would actually undermine most anti-monopoly law.

They are not separate in the monopoly sense though, are they ? Chrome, presumably a cost center, exists only to facilitate google's other businesses. Nobody has punished google for keeping products separate. Quite the contrary. It has always been about extending dominance in one segment to an unrelated one. So google could say that they treat all trackers equally in the incognito mode, and that would be correct, but if google analytics is the revenue center, and the cost center is giving it a free pass, the argument that other trackers can also bypass incognito seems weak.

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#187

Post by brmgb »

metroholografix wrote: post #161
bgwhn wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, there's probably less exposure from nuking the profiles directory, but I don't think you're being fair to containers: - Containers are a feature built into Firefox, these extensions just expose a UI for it. The Multi-Account Containers plugin [1] is published by Mozilla. You don't need to trust anyone but Mozilla to use that base set of functionality. - The container functionality in Firefox is the result of so…

I reworded my comment. My point remains in that a lot of possible issues disappear if I just choose to destroy the entire directory. There is a clear difference between one Chrome instance (and all its associated windows/tabs) segmented into one profile directory and in-process segmentation. The issues at [1] seem to invoke unexpected behavior in that you're asking for a new temporary container but you can't know ahe…

You are being disingenuous.

The issue you are quoting is about opening new containers while following links. That's something your solution doesn't support at all.

Your solution is akin to manually opening a new container. That will always work in Firefox.

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#188

Post by grupthink »

corty wrote: post #77
lern_too_spel wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That every other website in existence is behaving "badly?" Do you think Chrome should tell the website that the user is browsing in incognito mode so that websites will treat them differently? For example, a paywall website with a free article limit would simply not show content to users saying they are in incognito mode. Enabling incognito mode in Chrome and Firefox even explains that it doesn't stop server-side tra…

There is DNT for example, which can easily be used to transmit the user's intentions automatically and without unnecessary interaction. The technical means are there, they just need to be enforced, which maybe this lawsuit will improve...

It's the website's responsibility to respect DNT=1, then not load the ga script. DNT is not widely adopted and there are no legal mandates for it. It is simply an expression of preference. Blocking third party scripts and third party cookies is something you can set in all browsers which will block GA.

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#189

Post by tsimionescu »

up2you wrote: post #172
tsimionescu wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am aware of this as a developer. But as a regular user, when I am told that visiting HackerNews in incognito mode won't prevent HackerNews from tracking me doesn't tell me that it won't prevent Google and Facebook and who knows how many others too. Basically, this is one of the key ideas behind the GDPR: that I should have a legally-enforced expectation that when I'm agreeing to share my data with X, I'm not implic…

Incognito Mode states plainly that it DOES NOT prevent the website you are visiting from tracking you. Another commenter said that this wording implies that it DOES prevent Google Analytics, since it is not part of the site. My argument was that drawing a distinction between a "site" and modules that are part of that "site" but are from other parties is dubious.

> My argument was that drawing a distinction between a "site" and modules that are part of that "site" but are from other parties is dubious.

It is not only not dubious, it is in fact enshrined in law. I brought up the GDPR explicitly to highlight this. Specifically in the context of tracking and personal data, there is a distinction between the site I am visiting and the legal entity that is controlling it on one hand, and other entities that it contracts to achieve its purposes.

If your understanding of 'a website' includes all of the 3rd party trackers that it may be using, then the wording becomes obviously correct. I would venture though that this is not the common connotation of the phrase 'you may still be tracked by the website you are visiting', which I believe most people would take to mean more 'the origin server', i.e. 'I may still be tracked by the 1st party entity who owns the site I am directly visiting, but I will no longer be tracked by other parties'.

In fact, by your definition of 'the site I am visiting' , incognito mode offers no more tracking protection than regular browsing, as I can never be tracked by anything but the site I am visiting, including Google analytics, Facebook, and any other ad networks that they chose to use; I am never tracked by any site that I am not currently visiting, obviously.

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#190

Post by VMisTheWay »

mehlmao wrote: post #117
VMisTheWay wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulations don't make the problem go away. In fact, it's more likely Google will use the regulation to corner the market with regulatory capture.

So what does make the problem go away? Antitrust seems to be the only option at this point.

You could let Google fail.

Today they are on top, but if Automotive is any indication, Google will soon struggle

Post reply on HN