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

Google's widespread tracking across the web

simpleanalytics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–108 of 108 posts

Re: Google's widespread tracking across the web

#101

Post by int_19h »

dfxm12 wrote: post #67
amelius wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You ban it by making it illegal.

Rolling through stop signs is illegal, but people do it all the time without penalty. It's not enough to simply make something illegal. You also have to have groups empowered to enforce the law and dole out punishments heavy enough to act as a deterrent.

This boils down to difficulty of enforcement. Enforcing the law regarding stop signs is very difficult because it's hard to detect all the violations at scale. Tracking, though, is much easier to detect even automatically by its very nature.

Re: Google's widespread tracking across the web

#102

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

baggachipz wrote: post #55

This is an obvious, thinly-veiled advertisement for a company's services. It's widely known that ad companies track you everywhere by many mechanisms. This is why we use ad blockers of all sorts. This has nothing to do with DuckDuckGo, it's merely used as a vehicle to get clicks.

"SimpleAnalytics" by "IronBrands" uses utm tracking in the URL to the study that they have so graciously provided to the reader.

Perhaps the name should be "IronyBrands"

Re: Google's widespread tracking across the web

#103

Post by fc417fc802 »

int_19h wrote: post #101
dfxm12 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rolling through stop signs is illegal, but people do it all the time without penalty. It's not enough to simply make something illegal. You also have to have groups empowered to enforce the law and dole out punishments heavy enough to act as a deterrent.

This boils down to difficulty of enforcement. Enforcing the law regarding stop signs is very difficult because it's hard to detect all the violations at scale. Tracking, though, is much easier to detect even automatically by its very nature.

Tracking arguably isn't much of an issue until data sale and aggregation gets involved. That requires a functioning marketplace which tends to leave a lot of evidence behind.

The hyperscalers are a notable exception to that but the larger a company is the more likely systemic illegal practices are to get exposed.

Re: Google's widespread tracking across the web

#104

Post by fc417fc802 »

giingyui wrote: post #94
bayindirh wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, if you have any tracking on your site, you either a) Show the cookie banners if somebody is coming from a GPDR or GDPR-compliant country, since it's required by EU law and these GPDR-compliant laws. b) You geofence your site and prevent access. So, in practice regardless you whether sell anything or not, if your site, proverbially, touches European soil, you have to show these choices.

What’s the EU going to do to you if you don’t have operations in the EU?

That's option c, ignore EU law and forever give up the possibility of doing business there. The larger a company is the less likely it is to find that route palatable.

Re: Google's widespread tracking across the web

#105

Post by giingyui »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #104
giingyui wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the EU going to do to you if you don’t have operations in the EU?

That's option c, ignore EU law and forever give up the possibility of doing business there. The larger a company is the less likely it is to find that route palatable.

Why would the EU fine you for something you did before you had operations in the EU? I don’t think it works that way.

Re: Google's widespread tracking across the web

#106

Post by aniviacat »

giingyui wrote: post #105
fc417fc802 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's option c, ignore EU law and forever give up the possibility of doing business there. The larger a company is the less likely it is to find that route palatable.

Why would the EU fine you for something you did before you had operations in the EU? I don’t think it works that way.

If you are taking EU citizens' data when they access your website from within the EU, then of course the EU will prosecute you for that.

Just like they will prosecute you for scamming EU citizens, for hacking EU citizens, for impersonating EU citizens, and anything else you can do to EU citizens while being located somewhere else.

Re: Google's widespread tracking across the web

#107

Post by tharkun__ »

nottorp wrote: post #45
tharkun__ wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DDG is a privacy plugin (on desktop). On mobile it's its own browser. The one I'm writing this from. And yes I still use uBlock on top on desktop.

Huh? I use it daily, but I never installed any plugin...

It's "all of the above" ;)

As in:

DuckDuckGo is a search engine you can go to from any browser, such as but not limited to the Chrome browser on various platforms.

DuckDuckGo is also a browser for mobile phones. It's an app you can install e.g. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.duckduckgo.... You can then, if you want to, use Google Search exclusively from within that DDG browser ;)

DuckDuckGo is also a plugin for desktop browsers (e.g. for Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/duckduckgo-fo..., find the equivalent for Chrome on the webstore ...) that you can install. You can then exclusively use the Google Search engine while having the "DuckDuckGo Search & Tracker Protection" plugin installed if you so choose.

Re: Google's widespread tracking across the web

#108

Post by fc417fc802 »

giingyui wrote: post #105
fc417fc802 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's option c, ignore EU law and forever give up the possibility of doing business there. The larger a company is the less likely it is to find that route palatable.

Why would the EU fine you for something you did before you had operations in the EU? I don’t think it works that way.

Because they explicitly worded the law to threaten exactly that. It's the exact same thing the US does with the financial system. They intentionally claim extraterritorial jurisdiction; it is doubtful you would want to try calling that as a bluff.
Post reply on HN