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

Study: Google is the biggest beneficiary of the GDPR

cliqz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 140 posts

Re: Study: Google is the biggest beneficiary of the GDPR

#121

Post by Klathmon »

tjoff wrote: post #118
Klathmon wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that extremely unlikely, only because companies aren't entirely stupid, and if MANY companies have started doing that in this space, and since they started it their profits have gone up significantly, it points to this kind of tracking making a significant amount of money. And most of the tracking happens on the server, the client really only keeping some tokens for state and sending them with the requests.

> only because companies aren't entirely stupid [citation needed] Cents per user is still a lot of money if you have a billion users. Maybe the real value of tracking is the perceived value of tracking? It's a good way to combat competition as tracking requires that you already have a large presence.

Until one of us shows some kind of proof, we are both just guessing.

Now companies might do dumb stuff, but they don't just continue to grow and dominate by making exclusively bad decisions. Google is built on targeted advertising, and it's paid off for them very well, so it can't be a complete boondoggle.

The wikipedia article on targeted advertising says that targeted ads make about 2.7 more money than the alternative.

I don't have any numbers on material costs, but I can't imagine it costing users that much in electricity. Still, it is just a guess so if you have anything that shows otherwise I'd love to read it!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_advertising

Re: Study: Google is the biggest beneficiary of the GDPR

#122

Post by Angostura »

Matticus_Rex wrote: post #115
Angostura wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what? It's only a huge burden for organisations that process a lot of personal data in a variety of interesting ways.

As someone leading the privacy program at an organization that doesn't have that much personal data (relative to most businesses in our industry at least, and probably overall) and doesn't process it in particularly "interesting ways," I strongly disagree. The GDPR was and is a huge burden. You can believe that it's worth it without engaging in the fantasy that it's not burdensome, but don't deny the reality of the b…

As someone who was involved in the GDPR work for an organisation that holds some fairly critical information about people and needs to share it with other organisations both as Data Controller and Data Processor, it really wasn’t too bad, mainly because we had already thought quite carefully about privacy and data security.

As a committee member on a local swimming club, it took about 2 hours.

Re: Study: Google is the biggest beneficiary of the GDPR

#123

Post by ucaetano »

tveita wrote: post #116

Oh no, not the smaller advertising trackers. This is interesting data but I'm not sure it supports the title - It shows Google's market share in the EU going up a tiny bit, but total tracking goes down in the same period, while the baseline is probably runaway growth like the US. Google may be hurt the least, but I doubt they're a "beneficiary" in economic terms. It's a shame Project Wonderful just shut down - it fel…

> Google may be hurt the least, but I doubt they're a "beneficiary" in economic terms.

Quite the opposite, if you pass a 20% tax on every company, except for Google, who gets a 10% tax, it is a beneficiary.

Everything is relative.

Re: Study: Google is the biggest beneficiary of the GDPR

#124

Post by kristianc »

Drakim wrote: post #107
kristianc wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s exactly how GDPR works - Google will say that they are protected under the legitimate interest exemption.

Really, Google tracks me while I'm visiting a non-Google website (!!!), and they expect to be protected as having a "legitimate interest exception"? Unless Google can successfully argue that every action, every step, every breath I take, is now a business transaction with them because I made a google account, then they don't have a "legitimate interest exception" for jack shit.

Google is an advertising company and uses legitimate interests as a legal basis for collection when using personal data for activities such as serving contextual ads, ads reporting and to combat fraud and abuse. As for the third party website using third cookies etc to transact with Google, you have a choice whether to consent to that with the publisher.

Re: Study: Google is the biggest beneficiary of the GDPR

#125

Post by bjoern_cliqz »

tpush wrote: post #55

Yeah, I wouldn't trust this source on anything privacy related. They present themselves as user privacy champions but primarily make money via, you guessed it, advertisements. They are owned by Burda, a large German media organization who, again, make money by advertisement and processing of their user's data. "We’re breaking new grounds when it comes to developing our business model. Bringing together targeting and…

Hey, Björn from Cliqz here. Great to see the post has generated some interesting discussions on matters of privacy, compliance, and as you point out - business models.

Cliqz never has collected any personal data on its users, and never will. Over the course of the last 4 years, we started building a private search engine, to only realize that if we are to truly offer a usable alternative to navigate the web privately - we had to do much more. So we quickly found ourselves building an anti-tracking technology, anti-phishing, and anonymous rate limiting using Direct Anonymous Attestation. This research has been published / presented in the WWW Conference, Crypto and Privacy Village at DEF CON and CCC's Privacy Week.

We have packed all these technologies in desktop and mobile browsers. This is what we do and it's what got Mozilla interested in Cliqz, and why they are an investor, just like Burda Media. All the technologies we have built share 2 attributes:

1. None collect personal data

2. Rely on client-side logic (computers are powerful enough these days to be used for more than display interfaces)

Offers is part of how we monetize (we're exploring paid products too). Like any other technology at Cliqz, they share the same 2 attributes (No personal data, all triggering logic resides in the client). The code is open sourced here [1]. You can read a high-level description here [2].

We believe our approach is a healthy alternative to monetizing products on the web. At all times we allow the user to control what features from Cliqz they want to use; including offers. We understand there are plenty of reasons to be frustrated with the state of the web (we are too) - but blatantly rejecting any business model that brings privacy-preserving products to the market is not healthy.

[1]: https://github.com/cliqz-oss/browser-core/tree/master/module...

[2]: https://cliqz.com/en/cliqz-angebote

Re: Study: Google is the biggest beneficiary of the GDPR

#126

Post by Terretta »

dogma1138 wrote: post #99
detaro wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This goes against what I've seen in regard to consent (generally warnings to not use it unless truly necessary - if you require something put it as legitimate interest or requirement to perform the contract, do not ask for consent since it sets wrong expectations).

I also don't think consent is the right basis to use all the time (however it's important to note that no lawful basis takes precedence over any other) and good vetted vital interests and a contractual agreement is preferable, however consent is the easy way out. "This is what we do do you agree: yes/no" is much easier than to develop a valid vital 1st and 3rd party interest for each case and most online services don…

Your position will certainly be argued for in a court at some point.

So will the counter position that sending reader info to countless third parties isn't actually necessary to monetize, as plenty segmentation value comes from the readers' selection of the site itself.

It will be argued the marginal value of each additional exposure of the reader's private data does not outweigh the individual's right to privacy.

In the meantime, here is a reasonably neutral but in depth overview for site owners interested in learning more to better navigate GDPR:

https://dma.org.uk/uploads/misc/5ae1fbf5c60fd-gdpr-for-marke...

Re: Study: Google is the biggest beneficiary of the GDPR

#127

Post by oh_hello »

Outside of the specifics of this article, I've wondered what effect GDPR has had on smaller companies and even individual developers. My company spent a lot of time and money to become compliant. Not only was this expensive, but we relied on lawyers to advise on where we could draw the line for compliance. If the company were a bit smaller I imagine it would be impossible to tackle this project.

Re: Study: Google is the biggest beneficiary of the GDPR

#128

Post by kerng »

ucaetano wrote: post #123
tveita wrote: post #116

Oh no, not the smaller advertising trackers. This is interesting data but I'm not sure it supports the title - It shows Google's market share in the EU going up a tiny bit, but total tracking goes down in the same period, while the baseline is probably runaway growth like the US. Google may be hurt the least, but I doubt they're a "beneficiary" in economic terms. It's a shame Project Wonderful just shut down - it fel…

> Google may be hurt the least, but I doubt they're a "beneficiary" in economic terms. Quite the opposite, if you pass a 20% tax on every company, except for Google, who gets a 10% tax, it is a beneficiary. Everything is relative.

Yeah, beneficiaries are the end users and their privacy being worth something now. Which is something that wasn't the case before.

Re: Study: Google is the biggest beneficiary of the GDPR

#129

Post by Drakim »

kristianc wrote: post #124
Drakim wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, Google tracks me while I'm visiting a non-Google website (!!!), and they expect to be protected as having a "legitimate interest exception"? Unless Google can successfully argue that every action, every step, every breath I take, is now a business transaction with them because I made a google account, then they don't have a "legitimate interest exception" for jack shit.

Google is an advertising company and uses legitimate interests as a legal basis for collection when using personal data for activities such as serving contextual ads, ads reporting and to combat fraud and abuse. As for the third party website using third cookies etc to transact with Google, you have a choice whether to consent to that with the publisher.

By that logic GDPR actually doesn't affect a single company in the world, because by having an affect on the company, it will impact their legitimate business interests, and thus they will be exempt from GDPR.

I'm a company that forwards your postbox content to your house, and I also sell your nighttime movement data that I've harvested from GPS though my delivery app. Totally exempt from the GDPR since it's part of my core business to silently sell your data.

Re: Study: Google is the biggest beneficiary of the GDPR

#130

Post by Matticus_Rex »

Angostura wrote: post #122
Matticus_Rex wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone leading the privacy program at an organization that doesn't have that much personal data (relative to most businesses in our industry at least, and probably overall) and doesn't process it in particularly "interesting ways," I strongly disagree. The GDPR was and is a huge burden. You can believe that it's worth it without engaging in the fantasy that it's not burdensome, but don't deny the reality of the b…

As someone who was involved in the GDPR work for an organisation that holds some fairly critical information about people and needs to share it with other organisations both as Data Controller and Data Processor, it really wasn’t too bad, mainly because we had already thought quite carefully about privacy and data security. As a committee member on a local swimming club, it took about 2 hours.

There's a huge variance depending on the complexity of the business and how many different things you do. Most of the variance has little to do with the shadiness/lack thereof of what you were doing with the data or even how well it had been thought through. Most of the variance is in how many different types of things you're doing and how many different data inputs you have.

I've talked to colleagues who do a wide variety of processing for their controllers in a business with just a few employees, which is paralyzing. The company I work in is somewhere in the middle. I've also talked to colleagues at companies who only have a few inputs, and regardless of the volume of input that seems to be pretty easy.

Post reply on HN