Well I wonder if the alternative to cookies, the QUIC HTTP/3 Connection Migration IDs, are an end run around ad blockers, MAC spoofing, and other forms of anti-tracking measures. No way Google is going to make it harder to track people if they’re proposing a change and my understanding is that these IDs survive network switching, sessions, etc.
Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
121–130 of 354 posts
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the window 70% of people access the Internet through globally , Chrome has nearly limitless options for monetization. Arguably, being part of Google hurts it, because it has to fit into Google's ideal business strategy.
> Chrome has nearly limitless options for monetization. They do? Apple gives away a pretty decent browser with their OS. Microsoft gives away a version of Chrome with their OS (and for MacOS). Most Linux versions ship with variants of Chromium. The Chrome source which is a fork of WebKit which is in turn a fork of KHTML... is Open Source. Chrome can't really be sold. What exactly could "Chrome" the company do to make…
> Chrome can't really be sold.
Right. Now try to use that top right "user" icon on your chrome window to log in as a user that is not from a google account.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#123Earlier 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.
Thanks, removed Chrome ages ago in favor of Microsoft's Edge (the new one). Microsoft is fast becoming the good guys. It sets a default tracking level of Balanced, which blocks trackers from unvisited sites - you may then make it more strict if desired, out of the box with no extra plugins required. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/learn-abo...
> Microsoft is fast becoming the good guys
I think it's probably about time we stop pretending any of these major tech corporations are good guys.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. ipv6 has nothing to do with any of this.
Yes it does. Users now have a unique IP address that is now static. Yes you can rotate your exact IP inside your block but you still keep the same subnet.
That is the promise they sold it on.
But, point me to a single ISP that gives a cable subscriber more than one IPv6 address. or a /48 as initially everyone was hopping.
ISP profit from NAT. They will never get rid of it. Even if you get a /54 /64 the ad networks will just learn to assign /54 as they do today.
But, another point, ipv4 today is barred from being used to form your advertising profile under current legislation.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the window 70% of people access the Internet through globally , Chrome has nearly limitless options for monetization. Arguably, being part of Google hurts it, because it has to fit into Google's ideal business strategy.
> Chrome has nearly limitless options for monetization. They do? Apple gives away a pretty decent browser with their OS. Microsoft gives away a version of Chrome with their OS (and for MacOS). Most Linux versions ship with variants of Chromium. The Chrome source which is a fork of WebKit which is in turn a fork of KHTML... is Open Source. Chrome can't really be sold. What exactly could "Chrome" the company do to make…
Chrome already has an enterprise version with support and management tools (mostly for Chrome OS), that plus donations from Microsoft/Google could make it profitable for the team required. (Although it'd probably end up being a foundation like Mozilla)
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#126So 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…
Perhaps it's time to recognize that the company simply need not exist in it's present form. If Google was required to spin off Chrome as an independent company, there would be no antitrust issue, and privacy protections Chrome made would not also include anti-privacy features designed to feed Google's ad business. The reality is, Google needs to be broken up. Every fine they get makes that clear.
Playing devil's advocate, how is Google & Chrome different from, say, Apple & App Store? Thinking about iOS like a browser, arguably what Privacy Sandbox does is not that different from iOS 14's AppTrackingTransparency Framework. Both require the operator of the internals not to abuse their position for there to be fair play.
The most generous thing I could say is that it feels different. However, Apple has a stronger hold on iOS than Google has on the web. On the web, at least you could switch to another browser to view the same content. Switching off iPhone requires a whole new ecosystem and hardware.
I hope people who argue for a certain treatment of Google in this case are at least consistent in the Apple case.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps it's time to recognize that the company simply need not exist in it's present form. If Google was required to spin off Chrome as an independent company, there would be no antitrust issue, and privacy protections Chrome made would not also include anti-privacy features designed to feed Google's ad business. The reality is, Google needs to be broken up. Every fine they get makes that clear.
Playing devil's advocate, how is Google & Chrome different from, say, Apple & App Store? Thinking about iOS like a browser, arguably what Privacy Sandbox does is not that different from iOS 14's AppTrackingTransparency Framework. Both require the operator of the internals not to abuse their position for there to be fair play. The most generous thing I could say is that it feels different. However, Apple has a stronge…
1. I think Apple wields a questionable monopoly with regards to the App Store. I think that they should be required to allow third party stores, at minimum, on the iPhone. I am very much hoping Epic wins their case here, and that we have a more open field on iOS in the future.
2. Apple's new privacy changes require that apps solicit user permission before doing any tracking. However, once the user has granted that, app developers are allowed to either use Apple's solution or their own.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the window 70% of people access the Internet through globally , Chrome has nearly limitless options for monetization. Arguably, being part of Google hurts it, because it has to fit into Google's ideal business strategy.
You mention nearly limitless options but fail to mention one. Can you give some examples?
It's data collection is in Chrome's DNA. They could just continue to collect data on browser usage, and then "sell" that data to Google. No need for sites to install Analytics into their website when they can get 100% of all site analytics viewed from within their browser.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yep, they have GREASE TLS bytes, TLS resume ticket, RLZ value, X-Geo header, UA header, JS APIs with persistent random values (which they do indeed use on adsense! This is why you get surprise WebGL code seemingly doing nonsense once a while in adsense ads)
This cannot be a coincidence. They packed Chrome with fingerprints to work around GDPR by combining fingerprints on their side.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chrome has nearly limitless options for monetization. They do? Apple gives away a pretty decent browser with their OS. Microsoft gives away a version of Chrome with their OS (and for MacOS). Most Linux versions ship with variants of Chromium. The Chrome source which is a fork of WebKit which is in turn a fork of KHTML... is Open Source. Chrome can't really be sold. What exactly could "Chrome" the company do to make…
>> Chrome can't really be sold. Chrome can not be sold for many reasons, being open source is not one of them, nothing prevents the selling of open source software, one just has to include the source or make the source available Finding someone willing to buy chrome would be a harder problem
Indeed, especially when you have an official/trustworthy solution. For example, you could gate off value-adds for paying customers, whilst still making them open source. Sure, users can remove the "paid user" aspect and either compile it themselves or entrust that process to a third party. But the majority of users would not do so because of the effort or trust involved. (This is similar to movie piracy. Sure, it's trivial to pirate movies and music, but the majority of people pay for them.)