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

161–170 of 354 posts

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

#161

Post by dralley »

yalogin wrote: post #39

This is the equivalent of saying Company X makes the best light bulbs, we fear consumers won't buy other brands and so we don't want to allow X to sell bulbs. If anything this is a privacy concern, and a huge motivation for regulation. Cookies at least gives some iota of control to the user to stop tracking and know when its happening. However with the new approach users will be tracked all over incessantly. There is…

Bad analogy. It's more like, the company that controls the light bulb market, also controls most of the light fixture market, and decides to push for a new type of socket that they control the IP for.

Except in the real world, unlike this analogy, they can magically change the socket of their own light bulbs and fixtures over the air at any time.

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

#162

Post by joshuamorton »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #131
dylan604 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A key difference here is that Chrome could sell aggregated analytics data for performance testing and such, but not allow the ad company to get user-targeting quality data. With them in the same company, this is a nearly impossible barrier to achieve.

I'll bite: why is this nearly impossible to achieve?

It may be nearly impossible to prove to you, but what makes it impossible, or even particularly difficult, to achieve if the company is interested in doing it?

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

#163

Post by dodobirdlord »

Aerroon wrote: post #92
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…

My worry is that one day Google may decide that they are going to severely abuse my data. If they build up the idea over the years that they have your data then the jump to abusing it will be much smaller.

Then ask them to delete it all. You, like most people, probably won't ask - because it's extremely convenient to have Google store all of this data. But if you think the upside isn't worth the risk, just ask and they will destroy it all for you. You don't even have to claim you live in the EU or California or somewhere else with at data protection law.

https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7660719

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

#164

Post by summerlight »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #6
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…

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.

Firefox is completely an independent entity from Google and the reality is that they needed to accept the manifest v3 because their survival entirely depends on Google's money. Why do you think the situation would be different from this if Chrome get broken up from Google?

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

#165

Post by devlopr »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #100
adriancr wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or the subdomain goes to an advertiser server.

Oh, I didn't realize a subdomain was not considered 3rd party. So soon we'll see adnetwork.mydomain.com and www.mydomain.com. I think we should just make cookies only work when the domain matches exactly.

You would see mydomain.com/adnetwork then.

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

#166

Post by dodobirdlord »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #87
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.

You pretty much can, and they'll drop what data they have stored as well, if you ask.

https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7660719

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

#167

Post by judge2020 »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #87
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.

You can, but you obviously lose features [like most Google Assistant functionality if you turn off 'web and search activity' 1] or anti-features [can't view youtube or search ads if you install an ad blocker] by doing so.

1: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/54068

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

#168

Post by kissickas »

patcon wrote: post #158
madrox wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is basically an ad hominem argument. There is no room to discuss Sandbox on its merits with this stance. Yet we're debating this on an article whose every Sandbox criticism comes from other industry professionals who are just as worthy of being considered a malicious adversary. I make no statement that Project Sandbox should not be scrutinized -- merely that it's better than third party cookies -- and I don't be…

> This is basically an ad hominem argument. There is no room to discuss Sandbox on its merits with this stance. I respectfully disagree and defend the position you're replying to. I take issue with your provocation because I fear that asserting too much focus on a still-frame snapshot without looking at the full motion, that seems misguided. Politics constitute the motion around any spec snapshot. Focussing only on t…

You're ignoring the living, moving context that is the adtech industry. It's one with a much higher ratio of middlemen:customers than needed, representatives of whom appear in this article.

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

#169

Post by tylerhou »

ttt0 wrote: post #95
mav3rick wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PLEASE DON"T USE ANY GOOGLE PRODUCTS. Problem solved.

And I don't, but some people are more or less forced to use either Google or Microsoft products by their employers. I really wish the solution was as simple as that.

The solution is as simple as: Go into your privacy settings, and turn off ad personalization. Takes like three clicks.

https://adssettings.google.com/authenticated?hl=en

I have it off for both my personal and Google corporate accounts. (Disclaimer: I work at Google.)

If you don't want to be signed in at all, you can install a Chrome extension.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/iba-opt-out-by-goo...

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

#170

Post by judge2020 »

dralley wrote: post #161
yalogin wrote: post #39

This is the equivalent of saying Company X makes the best light bulbs, we fear consumers won't buy other brands and so we don't want to allow X to sell bulbs. If anything this is a privacy concern, and a huge motivation for regulation. Cookies at least gives some iota of control to the user to stop tracking and know when its happening. However with the new approach users will be tracked all over incessantly. There is…

Bad analogy. It's more like, the company that controls the light bulb market, also controls most of the light fixture market, and decides to push for a new type of socket that they control the IP for. Except in the real world, unlike this analogy, they can magically change the socket of their own light bulbs and fixtures over the air at any time.

But if that socket uses 3x less power for the same light output, and the automatic update reduces the power usage of the entire world overnight, wouldn't it be a net positive? Although, I suppose it could still be viewed as an anti-competitive action.
Post reply on HN