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

A new path for Privacy Sandbox on the web

privacysandbox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: A new path for Privacy Sandbox on the web

#31

Post by grishka »

victor- wrote: post #18

A major problem with blocking third party cookies is that it kills any embeddable logged in experience. Think payment gateway widgets that would now require you to login every time you want to make a purchase, or youtube embeds that would no longer recognize your premium subscription and roll ads across the web if if you pay for none, etc.

And that's the only good use case for third-party cookies. I'm willing to sacrifice that if it would mean that reliable cross-site tracking is made impossible.

Re: A new path for Privacy Sandbox on the web

#32

Post by DougN7 »

righthand wrote: post #27
btown wrote: post #15

From the OP: > Instead of deprecating third-party cookies, we would introduce a new experience in Chrome that lets people make an informed choice that applies across their web browsing, and they’d be able to adjust that choice at any time. The OP also cites https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/15189422 (also published today) which makes the "why" of this self-evident: > By comparing the treatment arm to contro…

> new experience in Chrome An unnamed experience to replace a bad policy seems like the kind of thing you state when a project has failed and is winding down. I agree that Google needs an eye kept on them though. They are never to be trusted.

It’s sad that “don’t be evil” is now a joke.

Re: A new path for Privacy Sandbox on the web

#33

Post by righthand »

DougN7 wrote: post #32
righthand wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> new experience in Chrome An unnamed experience to replace a bad policy seems like the kind of thing you state when a project has failed and is winding down. I agree that Google needs an eye kept on them though. They are never to be trusted.

It’s sad that “don’t be evil” is now a joke.

Or maybe it was always a joke that people took seriously? What about Dont Be Evil was guaranteed to render different results than Microsoft besides passionate speeches? The motto should have been “Complexity Shift Evil” or “Evil Differently”.

Re: A new path for Privacy Sandbox on the web

#34

Post by hedora »

jeroenhd wrote: post #21
deskr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll be like Android's location sharing with Google. Nothing works unless you agree to a wholesale google location surveillance. Then they can say you agreed to this.

I disagree. Things may be different in the EU, but for every feature that triggered the "enable location history" popup, it made a lot of sense to require it. And, most importantly, you can just turn it off and everything important keeps working. You can disable the "send a list of nearby cell towers to Google's live database" setting, the "send a list of Bluetooth beacons to Google's live database" setting, and the…

The location API sends your gps position to google so they can annotate it.

They claim they don’t record your history, but, at the very least, as a US company, they have to share it with the authorities.

If you could truly opt out, then it’d be much easier to use third party software without google play services installed.

Re: A new path for Privacy Sandbox on the web

#35

Post by tambourine_man »

DougN7 wrote: post #32
righthand wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> new experience in Chrome An unnamed experience to replace a bad policy seems like the kind of thing you state when a project has failed and is winding down. I agree that Google needs an eye kept on them though. They are never to be trusted.

It’s sad that “don’t be evil” is now a joke.

Evil, petty (url shortener), incompetent.

Re: A new path for Privacy Sandbox on the web

#36

Post by troyvit »

svat wrote: post #24

> Throughout this process, we’ve received feedback from a wide variety of stakeholders, including regulators like the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), publishers, web developers and standards groups, civil society, and participants in the advertising industry. Chrome (and Google in general) has a tough problem of having to satisfy such diametrically opposed "st…

If I was under pressure from so many different stakeholders with different requirements I'd probably ask to be broken up.

Re: A new path for Privacy Sandbox on the web

#37

Post by agwa »

righthand wrote: post #27
btown wrote: post #15

From the OP: > Instead of deprecating third-party cookies, we would introduce a new experience in Chrome that lets people make an informed choice that applies across their web browsing, and they’d be able to adjust that choice at any time. The OP also cites https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/15189422 (also published today) which makes the "why" of this self-evident: > By comparing the treatment arm to contro…

> new experience in Chrome An unnamed experience to replace a bad policy seems like the kind of thing you state when a project has failed and is winding down. I agree that Google needs an eye kept on them though. They are never to be trusted.

To be clear, the outcome quoted above (Privacy Sandbox, no 3P cookies, ~20% reduction in ad revenue) is what Google wanted but regulators (spurred on by the ad industry) wouldn't let them have.

I agree Google needs an eye kept on them, but unfortunately the people doing that are looking out for the interests of other ad providers, not the public.

Re: A new path for Privacy Sandbox on the web

#39

Post by InTheArena »

svat wrote: post #24

> Throughout this process, we’ve received feedback from a wide variety of stakeholders, including regulators like the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), publishers, web developers and standards groups, civil society, and participants in the advertising industry. Chrome (and Google in general) has a tough problem of having to satisfy such diametrically opposed "st…

The challenge is more satisfying anti-trust and privacy. Anti-trust requires transparency to validate that no one is abusing the system, privacy requires opaqueness.

Re: A new path for Privacy Sandbox on the web

#40

Post by rjh29 »

jeroenhd wrote: post #21
deskr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll be like Android's location sharing with Google. Nothing works unless you agree to a wholesale google location surveillance. Then they can say you agreed to this.

I disagree. Things may be different in the EU, but for every feature that triggered the "enable location history" popup, it made a lot of sense to require it. And, most importantly, you can just turn it off and everything important keeps working. You can disable the "send a list of nearby cell towers to Google's live database" setting, the "send a list of Bluetooth beacons to Google's live database" setting, and the…

There is so much stuff Chrome sends to Google though. I was curious how their autofill implementation works and... there is code to send a list of all form and field names to a Google API. That alone could be sensitive information.
Post reply on HN