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

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: A new path for Privacy Sandbox on the web

#51

Post by jauntywundrkind »

linuxandrew wrote: post #50
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…

Not only that, they are the advertising industry, or at least a major player. Moves like Manifest V3, continuing 3P cookies and user-hostile moves on YouTube are all a part of that. Chrome should really not be a part of Google IMO. It's a significant conflict of interest.

In spite of Manifest V3 being a shit show, I continue to see all manners of evidence that Google wants genuine honest reform for user privacy. The attitude & negativity is at severely problematic levels, and Google actually gets that improvement & reform is necessary to keep going for another decade without some kind of boil over/explosion.

I agree that Chrome in theory shouldnt be a part of Google. But generally I think there is incredibly little self-dealing, that some ideas do go wrong but usually there's not such a sinister backstory of self-interest driving things. I don't know about today, but I'm the past engineers would pretty definitely say they'd never seen anything like the insinuation & top down steering that's so regularly casually implied, and it's remarkable how this casual accusation of rot is left to dominate. It's really unfortunate.

But I still think I'm principle there should ideally be harder separation. But I really doubt we can get an adequate funding source lined up. Chrome supports humanity's preeminent multi-media platform, is a huge gift to the world. And that online world that exists because of Chrome and FF, the general health of that world, that's what keeps Google alive & keeps the money pouring in. If Google can't invest in the web who would step up?.I'd love to see hundreds of millions a years allocated to this collective treasure we all enjoy, that runs on almost as many systems as Doom runs on, but alas there's just not the collective motive & will to support our great works.

I really hope Chrome can offer users a choice here, and that the choice really is good and that we can opt to leave this terrible 3rd party cookie world behind. I like the idea of not having a hard break, of this being more of a shift, one that the world can be more involved in navigating. Fingers crossed.

Re: A new path for Privacy Sandbox on the web

#52

Post by chippiewill »

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #25

> including regulators like the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) > as we finalize this approach, we’ll continue to consult with the CMA, ICO and other regulators globally Very interesting that it specifically calls out the little UK regulators rather than the much bigger US or EU bodies.

The UK regulators can be aggressive and have teeth. The CMA held up Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard by about 4 months.

The UK is still one of the world's largest economies so they're hard to ignore. The CMA and ICO tend to be quite collaborative and apolitical so they're easy for companies to work with. Ironically I think the ICO is still one of the best enforcers of EU data privacy laws.

Re: A new path for Privacy Sandbox on the web

#53

Post by linuxandrew »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #51
linuxandrew wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, they are the advertising industry, or at least a major player. Moves like Manifest V3, continuing 3P cookies and user-hostile moves on YouTube are all a part of that. Chrome should really not be a part of Google IMO. It's a significant conflict of interest.

In spite of Manifest V3 being a shit show, I continue to see all manners of evidence that Google wants genuine honest reform for user privacy. The attitude & negativity is at severely problematic levels, and Google actually gets that improvement & reform is necessary to keep going for another decade without some kind of boil over/explosion. I agree that Chrome in theory shouldnt be a part of Google. But generally I t…

> In spite of Manifest V3 being a shit show, I continue to see all manners of evidence that Google wants genuine honest reform for user privacy. The attitude & negativity is at severely problematic levels, and Google actually gets that improvement & reform is necessary to keep going for another decade without some kind of boil over/explosion.

> I agree that Chrome in theory shouldnt be a part of Google. But generally I think there is incredibly little self-dealing,

OK, I'll bite. If Google cares about privacy so much, couldn't they simply disable 3P cookies like everyone else (minus Edge)? [1] Am we really to believe that the Chrome team is busy playing a game of 4D chess in the conquest for user privacy? I for one do not.

1: https://clearcode.cc/blog/browsers-first-third-party-cookies...

Re: A new path for Privacy Sandbox on the web

#54

Post by mrgoldenbrown »

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…

Google is the advertising industry. It's disingenuous to paint them as stuck between themselves and consumers.

Re: A new path for Privacy Sandbox on the web

#55

Post by mrgoldenbrown »

threecheese wrote: post #45
robhlt wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new path is they aren't deprecating third-party cookies anymore. Instead they're going to "introduce a new experience in Chrome that lets people make an informed choice that applies across their web browsing" (in the 4th paragraph).

I’m sorry, what?!? We had a massive web presence overhaul at $bigco, high-vis project, it just completed. All because third party cookies were going to become unsupported. Under time and under budget, what a waste of good velocity.

Did the overhaul result in better end user privacy? If so it was worth it. Even if it just resulted in a higher cost to maintain the existing level of privacy violation it would be worth it from a customers perspective. The more it costs to surveil people the better from the consumer privacy perspective.

Re: A new path for Privacy Sandbox on the web

#56

Post by mindslight »

Seeing the name "Privacy Sandbox", you might think it would be a ground-up creation aimed at mitigating all of the gratuitous security vulnerabilities that Doubleclick has pushed into the web ecosystem - with deterministic rendering and a fixed lists of system fonts to fix the canvas vulns, permissions checks returning immediate 'no' instead of hanging on asking the user, permissions gating things that can likely never be secured (webgl), and so on with every vulnerability that leads to browser fingerprinting. But no, it's an Orwellian term meant to market something that deliberately violates user trust by leaking even more information!

Re: A new path for Privacy Sandbox on the web

#58

Post by [deleted] »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #51
linuxandrew wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, they are the advertising industry, or at least a major player. Moves like Manifest V3, continuing 3P cookies and user-hostile moves on YouTube are all a part of that. Chrome should really not be a part of Google IMO. It's a significant conflict of interest.

In spite of Manifest V3 being a shit show, I continue to see all manners of evidence that Google wants genuine honest reform for user privacy. The attitude & negativity is at severely problematic levels, and Google actually gets that improvement & reform is necessary to keep going for another decade without some kind of boil over/explosion. I agree that Chrome in theory shouldnt be a part of Google. But generally I t…

[deleted]

Re: A new path for Privacy Sandbox on the web

#59

Post by vehemenz »

Interesting timing for this. Chrome 127 (releases today) disables Manifest V2 extensions. When uBlock Lite runs out of rules, unwanted advertising will be back on the web.

With all due respect to the Chrome team, where is the leadership, competence, or moral courage at Google? It looks like they are announcing to the world today that they care more about advertisers than users.

Re: A new path for Privacy Sandbox on the web

#60

Post by deskr »

JohnFen wrote: post #28
jeroenhd wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> after they got found out (and the authorities got involved) they changed their tune. So we can expect similar shenanigans when it comes to the "privacy sandbox".

Only until they're found out.
Post reply on HN