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

Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

digiday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 354 posts

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#81

Post by eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 »

derekp7 wrote: post #2

So if I understand this correctly, then killing off 3rd party cookies is anti-competitive, leaving them in is anti-privacy, and putting out a privacy-enhancing alternative is also anti-competitive. Is there anything that can be done that would satisfy all regulations? Also, this reminds me of a story I heard years ago, that a California oil change location needed to store oil above ground due to EPA regulations, but…

> needed to store oil above ground due to EPA regulations, but needed it stored underground to satisfy the fire department regulations.

Did they try building tanks both above and below ground, connecting them with two pipes so there's a circle, and constantly pumping it along that circle so it is not stored anywhere but merely in transit through both areas?

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#82

Post by SheinhardtWigCo »

0xy wrote: post #67
ogre_codes wrote: post #57

Google's way of leveraging their browser dominance to use 3rd party cookies as a way to gain competitive advantage: Step 1: Implement a whole new browser functionality where Google alone can track people. Step 2: Eliminate 3rd party cookies so Google's competitors have to create increasingly unethical and invasive fingerprinting techniques to remain competitive. Step 3: Increase advertising rates since they are the o…

This is a good time to remind everyone that Google has planted a hard-coded "X-Client-Data" telemetry backdoor that is sent to DoubleClick domains, is never disclosed to users and is impossible to disable. The header, which is not available to any of their competitors, contains unique information about the install that could allow them to track people better than anyone.

Yep, if you leave telemetry enabled (default setting) then it’s a persistent unique ID sent with every request to a Google domain: https://9to5google.com/2020/02/06/google-chrome-x-client-dat...

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#83

Post by danudey »

derekp7 wrote: post #2

So if I understand this correctly, then killing off 3rd party cookies is anti-competitive, leaving them in is anti-privacy, and putting out a privacy-enhancing alternative is also anti-competitive. Is there anything that can be done that would satisfy all regulations? Also, this reminds me of a story I heard years ago, that a California oil change location needed to store oil above ground due to EPA regulations, but…

The claim that killing 3rd party cookies is anti-competitive is some Marketing Company Bullshit. A group in France is also suing Apple on antitrust grounds because they're going to ask users if they want to be tracked.

What's actually anti-competitive is the idea that Google will kill them off and replace it with a solution which they control, forcing advertisers to deal with them and their ad products directly in order to do anything.

Whether that's actually what's happening is another question entirely.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#84

Post by JKCalhoun »

victorhooi wrote: post #48
Simulacra wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a word, no. Google and other corporate monoliths like it depend on data, as much as they can get, as personal as it can be, and pervasive as the air we breathe. Consumers want privacy, control over their data, and the power to say no. The only sensible middle ground is for Google and others to be up front about the data, what they do with it, where it goes, etc. and the consumer having the ability to say no. Unfor…

I think you're projecting the HN crowd a bit here. The majority of normal people probably don't care as much about "privacy" as some of the vocal folks here do. I'm not making a value judgement on that, it's simply how it is. People want to use services like Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram or Google search/Gmail/Google Maps that have the functionality they enjoy. If those companies can show them targeted ads vs random…

> The majority of normal people probably don't care as much about "privacy" as some of the vocal folks here do.

I think you're correct, but then that makes it a no-brainer for Google. Let us opt-out, the other 99% will continue to be part of the data harvest (and they like it!). Google can say they give user's a choice.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#85

Post by ilammy »

josefx wrote: post #17
albertgoeswoof wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would chrome survive as a business?

How would Linux kernel development survive as a business?

It survives because GPL forces it to be performed in the open, in a cooperative manner. This is not the case with browsers.

Both Linux kernel and web browsers are arguably too huge now to be even maintained entirely by a single organization, let alone to be developed from scratch by one.

Linux being under GPL kinda forces cooperation between businesses for their business needs, if they are going to tweak Linux. With browsers are you under impression that you can just fork Chromium maintained by someone else and then just add your business value for you alone to reap.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#86

Post by mechnesium »

derekp7 wrote: post #2

So if I understand this correctly, then killing off 3rd party cookies is anti-competitive, leaving them in is anti-privacy, and putting out a privacy-enhancing alternative is also anti-competitive. Is there anything that can be done that would satisfy all regulations? Also, this reminds me of a story I heard years ago, that a California oil change location needed to store oil above ground due to EPA regulations, but…

Yes, eliminate cookies entirely. Let companies revert to relying on consumer feedback and word of mouth praise rather than cyberstalking.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#87

Post by JKCalhoun »

seaman1921 wrote: post #26

It is so annoying to see that HN and general media have collectively decided that Google and everything it does is evil, but honestly you have no idea how good you have it right now. Google is not abusing your user data like you are made to think. If you talk to a Google engineer, you would realise the countlesss number of measures they take to safeguard user's data - human access is next to impossible. Only machines…

I don't doubt you are correct. So Google, let me turn the data collection off.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#88

Post by ttt0 »

danudey wrote: post #80
0xy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good time to remind everyone that Google has planted a hard-coded "X-Client-Data" telemetry backdoor that is sent to DoubleClick domains, is never disclosed to users and is impossible to disable. The header, which is not available to any of their competitors, contains unique information about the install that could allow them to track people better than anyone.

Google's response to this allegation: https://9to5google.com/2020/02/06/google-chrome-x-client-dat... TL;DR, they claim that this header is sent to all Google-owned domains, and describes the feature flags that your browser has enabled, and it doesn't contain any PII. Oh wait They backpedalled on this by removing from the whitepaper their claim that the X-Client-Data field doesn't contain PII: https://vpnoverview.com…

> it doesn't contain any PII.

Even if that was the case, this is a bullshit argument. They don't need any PII, it's just more fingerprinting. They already have all the personal information they'll ever need by using all the other means.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#89

Post by ogre_codes »

adriancr wrote: post #62
ogre_codes wrote: post #57

Google's way of leveraging their browser dominance to use 3rd party cookies as a way to gain competitive advantage: Step 1: Implement a whole new browser functionality where Google alone can track people. Step 2: Eliminate 3rd party cookies so Google's competitors have to create increasingly unethical and invasive fingerprinting techniques to remain competitive. Step 3: Increase advertising rates since they are the o…

> increasingly unethical and invasive fingerprinting techniques to remain competitive. ... or serve cookies via first-party subdomain ... Also, hasn't Safari already killed third party cookies?

Yup.

Google is lagging everyone else on this issue because it'll hit their advertising income.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#90

Post by eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 »

seaman1921 wrote: post #26

It is so annoying to see that HN and general media have collectively decided that Google and everything it does is evil, but honestly you have no idea how good you have it right now. Google is not abusing your user data like you are made to think. If you talk to a Google engineer, you would realise the countlesss number of measures they take to safeguard user's data - human access is next to impossible. Only machines…

> but honestly you have no idea how good you have it right now.

Do me a favor: Grab an Android phone with all the Google crap still on it, factory reset it, and actually read the obnoxious ways in which Google asks you to give it permission to track you.

"We want to improve your search results!!! Click yes!" The small print: and thereby enable us to log EVERYWHERE you walk, drive, commute ALL DAY LONG.

And that example is rather poor, I can't even properly reiterate how brazenly they lie into your face when they make up reasons for those confirmation dialogs.

The last time I did this, I actually had to laugh at how shameless the text was worded. Everything is phrased as if it were 100% to your benefit even though it is 1% to yours and 99% to theirs.

It's straight up manipulation.

Post reply on HN