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

291–300 of 354 posts

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

#291

Post by Daho0n »

dleslie wrote: post #147
madrox wrote: post #142

I hope no one is saying Privacy Sandbox is worse than third party cookies, or is trusting this article to form an opinion about it. Web advertising was a $319 billion dollar industry in 2019. Does anyone wonder who may be lobbying their government to scrutinize Google and offer themselves for interviews for articles like this? Does anyone think the result of beating up Project Sandbox will be more radical privacy pro…

Ok, I'll bite. I don't trust Google, and let's assume that they will always be a malicious adversary. Given that, why should I not be skeptical of their Privacy Sandbox initiative?

No one is saying you shouldn't be sceptical. What OP is saying is only that you should not form an opinion on the subject based off of what some pro-third-party-cookies advertising-people are saying. He is pointing out that this is clearly an attack from someone with a lot to loose, not saying "trust google".

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

#292

Post by tremon »

ttt0 wrote: post #96
ElvisTrout wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely fingerprinting is PII? It allows for mosaic identification.

I don't know, are fonts installed on your system PII? Because it can be used for fingerprinting. But I don't know the precise definition, so maybe you're right.

Intent matters. If you use the fonts list to identify persons, it's PII.

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

#293

Post by [deleted] »

dceddia wrote: post #172
dodobirdlord wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And then, who gets to run those servers? Even if it’s not Google, it’s probably not just anyone, right? Does that lead to a situation where there’s some authority or group of authorities that decides whether you or your startup gets to track users? And would you suppose it would be free for anyone to join this list of approved advertisers? Or might there be a fee, or some conditions to apply? This is how DNS, the I…

Maybe this is just my cynicism shining through, but I'm not sure I trust Google, or really most modern companies, to create something that wouldn't mainly be for their own benefit.

[deleted]

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

#294

Post by crypster »

madrox wrote: post #160
ogre_codes wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope no one is saying Privacy Sandbox is worse than third party cookies Sort of like saying: "I hope no one is saying having a tracker in your car is worse than having a guy following you around." Sure, it's better. But it's not good either.

Of course it isn't good. This is HN, and we want the web advertising industry to go away. However, that's not going to be the outcome. Antitrust scrutiny in this case means making it more fair to third party advertisers...the people who will be hit most by third party cookie disabling. As much as we want to hate on Google, articles like this won't make them move toward more privacy.

> This is HN, and we want the web advertising industry to go away.

Sure let's go back to the ol' day where business would reach out to their clientele only on bill boards and news papers. Oh wait, I guess I should apply for a physical newspaper subscription too!

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

#295

Post by Dirlewanger »

madrox wrote: post #142

I hope no one is saying Privacy Sandbox is worse than third party cookies, or is trusting this article to form an opinion about it. Web advertising was a $319 billion dollar industry in 2019. Does anyone wonder who may be lobbying their government to scrutinize Google and offer themselves for interviews for articles like this? Does anyone think the result of beating up Project Sandbox will be more radical privacy pro…

What Google department do you work for?

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

#296

Post by chopin »

ngold wrote: post #199
baybal2 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe they already did lawyerising, as written above. They grabbed onto the wording of PII as " personally identifiable information" that information is identifiable, but not personally identifiable, so it is ok to use for ads.

So we knows it's you, but you are a integer.

I don't think this would stand up to scrutiny if the EU was willing to really enforce the GDPR (unfortunately they are not).

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

#297

Post by contravariant »

jsnell wrote: post #282
contravariant wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're slightly off on that first one. Killing 3rs party cookies isn't anti-competitive, in fact I'd argue any decent browser should do it to protect their users' privacy. What is possibly anti-competitive is their proposed alternative. And frankly I'm not sold on the supposed privacy of such an alternative either (which, in order to be functionally different from 3rd party cookies, will have to store persona…

> Killing 3rs party cookies isn't anti-competitive The problem is that when it comes to determining what's anti-competitive, yours is not the opinion that matters. According to the article, multiple US states, a US House submicommitee believe it is anticompetitive and now a UK regulator is also investigating whether it is. This is not a hypothetical like you think. It is what the people in power actually are on recor…

I'm having some trouble following your argument. You seem to be accusing me of the thing I'm against on the basis that my opinion isn't the one that matters.

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

#298

Post by llarsson »

theshrike79 wrote: post #231
madrox wrote: post #142

I hope no one is saying Privacy Sandbox is worse than third party cookies, or is trusting this article to form an opinion about it. Web advertising was a $319 billion dollar industry in 2019. Does anyone wonder who may be lobbying their government to scrutinize Google and offer themselves for interviews for articles like this? Does anyone think the result of beating up Project Sandbox will be more radical privacy pro…

> Web advertising was a $319 billion dollar industry in 2019. Does anyone wonder who may be lobbying their government to scrutinize Google and offer themselves for interviews for articles like this? You do know that Google is a web advertising company first? If they're proposing something, you can be damned sure that it was vetted first by people who know how to use it for ad tracking - because that's literally their…

Oh, they care about privacy just the way they care about security: valuable and actionable data about you should belong to them.

Their security people are top-notch. They guard your data very diligently. If they did not, you would not trust them with intimate details about your life.

Your privacy is the same. They will keep your data private *from their competitors*, but they will fully enjoy using it for their own purposes.

It is ludicrous to think that an advertising company, whose value proposition is precisely in its ability to target users accurately, would willingly impair their ability to do so.

They will, however, gladly make it difficult for their competition.

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

#299

Post by kall »

madrox wrote: post #142

I hope no one is saying Privacy Sandbox is worse than third party cookies, or is trusting this article to form an opinion about it. Web advertising was a $319 billion dollar industry in 2019. Does anyone wonder who may be lobbying their government to scrutinize Google and offer themselves for interviews for articles like this? Does anyone think the result of beating up Project Sandbox will be more radical privacy pro…

I think no one (in the article) is saying it‘s worse for privacy, or if they do that‘s an easy lie. They are saying it‘s worse for competition. A competitive online advertising market may well be in opposition to the highest level of user privacy.

The EU has both antitrust and privacy concerns with big tech, but it‘s different fronts.

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

#300

Post by kall »

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…

No, this is nothing like lightbulbs. If you take the complaint at face value (limiting ad tracking for others more than yourself) it is a classic antitrust case: leveraging your earned position in one market to gain unearned advantage in an unrelated one. This disrupts the efficient functioning of markets, which makes it a problem.
Post reply on HN