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

Google is Exploring an Alternative to Cookies for Ad Tracking

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 98 posts

Re: Google is Exploring an Alternative to Cookies for Ad Tracking

#41

Post by chris_j »

frank_boyd wrote: post #33
pimeys wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using Firefox as my main browser for a couple of years now. It's really getting better in every build. And Vimperator is not available for Chrome. Nowadays my biggest reason to stay with Firefox is that I trust Mozilla more than I trust Google.

> I trust Mozilla more than I trust Google. No company working with the NSA can ever be trusted. That only leaves Mozilla. Plus, are there any other companies that are not-for-profit, like Mozilla? Because this point gives them a huge credit.

What makes you think that Mozilla are obliged to cooperate with the NSA any less than Google are?

Re: Google is Exploring an Alternative to Cookies for Ad Tracking

#42

Post by alecsmart1 »

dombili wrote: post #37
duvet wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't the same build. Those are features that don't focus on the UX or the design. I think that build is labeled Aurora? I could be mistaken. UX Nightly includes those features but it is focused on user experience.

>Those are features that don't focus on the UX or the design. I think that build is labeled Aurora Nope, Aurora is something else. It's the build after Nightly. Nightly includes pre-alpha releases, Aurora includes alpha releases. You are however correct that Nightly and Nightly UX are not the same thing. Although if I'm not mistaken the only difference between two of them is that Nightly UX also gets pre-alpha UI cha…

Which one would you recommend I get? Am currently using Chrome and wouldn't mind switching to FF.

Re: Google is Exploring an Alternative to Cookies for Ad Tracking

#45

Post by frank_boyd »

chris_j wrote: post #41
frank_boyd wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I trust Mozilla more than I trust Google. No company working with the NSA can ever be trusted. That only leaves Mozilla. Plus, are there any other companies that are not-for-profit, like Mozilla? Because this point gives them a huge credit.

What makes you think that Mozilla are obliged to cooperate with the NSA any less than Google are?

For now:

a) The fact that they didn't appear in Snowden's documents like the other companies,

b) the fact that companies like Google (and Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc.) have it as their mission to build as precise user profiles as possible ("data hoover"), for example because the rely on advertising revenue. (Google is a 1-trick-pony, advertising being its trick.)

Re: Google is Exploring an Alternative to Cookies for Ad Tracking

#46

Post by dombili »

alecsmart1 wrote: post #42
dombili wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Those are features that don't focus on the UX or the design. I think that build is labeled Aurora Nope, Aurora is something else. It's the build after Nightly. Nightly includes pre-alpha releases, Aurora includes alpha releases. You are however correct that Nightly and Nightly UX are not the same thing. Although if I'm not mistaken the only difference between two of them is that Nightly UX also gets pre-alpha UI cha…

Which one would you recommend I get? Am currently using Chrome and wouldn't mind switching to FF.

I'm currently using Nightly UX. I've been using it for quite awhile and I haven't had any problems with it. That being said, you should keep in mind that this is a pre-alpha release and it wouldn't be surprising to run into some problems. If your browsing experience heavily depends on extensions, I'd recommend you not to use Nightly, though. I only use NoScript and AdBlock Edge as my extensions, but if you install 10+ extensions, you're not gonna like Nightly.

In any case, you can just install it and experience it yourself. If you're like me who started using Chrome because you were sick of how slow and unstable Firefox was, you'll be amazed how good it is now.

Re: Google is Exploring an Alternative to Cookies for Ad Tracking

#47

Post by fauigerzigerk »

I hope they go with this nonsense. It's almost as easy to kill as cookies and it's going to be a PR disaster, maybe even a legal nightmare for them. Browser/system fingerprinting would scare me a lot more because it doesn't require anything on the client side.

Re: Google is Exploring an Alternative to Cookies for Ad Tracking

#48

Post by stingraycharles »

ma2rten wrote: post #43
bowlofpetunias wrote: post #12

Wow. "Don't be evil" is really dead and buried isn't it?

How exactly is this more evil than a tracking cookie? To me it sounds pretty much the same.

The reason, at least here in Europe, is legislation: cookies are written by the website to the user's PC. As far as I understand, this alternative doesn't write anything to a device, thus circumventing the law.

Re: Google is Exploring an Alternative to Cookies for Ad Tracking

#49

Post by elorant »

In a sense this could be good news. If advertisers were using a different technology rather than cookies that could make our lives as developers a lot easier since we wouldn’t have to bother building alternatives for the lack of cookies in our web apps. Ads are what gave cookies a bad name. If in the years to come cookies can be disengaged from ads that would make users more reluctant to disable them.

Re: Google is Exploring an Alternative to Cookies for Ad Tracking

#50

Post by Fargren »

anxiousest wrote: post #11

I don't get the alarmist tone of that piece: it's very preliminary, they are consulting with interested parties, building an opt out mechanism. Oh and Apple already deployed an identical ad id a while ago.

I think "it's opt-out" is a very poor excuse. When something of this type is going to be implemented, opt-in should be the default. If you can't convince the people who will be affected by this that they are going to want it, then you are probably in the wrong.
Post reply on HN