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

Google’s GDPR Workaround

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 629 posts

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#331

Post by lern_too_spel »

Iv wrote: post #90
rvz wrote: post #8

It's really funny to see that yesterday, I was branded as a 'privacy nut' after the release of Android 10 as I was concerned about the privacy issues that are in Android. Then the Go modules proxy issue around the Go Programming language that raised suspicions about tracking usage statistics around downloading modules turned on by default without any consent and now this. I think there are some folks at Google who ha…

"You know, that PATRIOT act really allows spying on everyone" "Come on that's just paranoia" Snowden leaks secret program that implements everything details in the patriot act. "WHO COULD HAVE SUSPECTED?"

What program did Snowden leak that shows the US government spying on everyone?

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#332

Post by pbhjpbhj »

billyc74 wrote: post #68
amelius wrote: post #64

Targeted ads are already a serious leak of information. If somebody looks over my shoulder and sees the ads presented to me, they can infer things about me. Also, if a malicious actor targets an ad to a group of people, and some of these people buy the advertised items, then the actor can infer things about those people not necessarily related to the items sold.

if someone looked over your shoulder and saw you browsing HN they could infer things too

My children tease me about "being a hacker", by which they mean unlawfully breaching security of internet systems, because they've seen me reading "hacker news".

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#333

Post by lol768 »

ChoGGi wrote: post #303
colordrops wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is Arcs

It seems to be 'an open ecosystem for privacy-preserving, AI-first computing'?

Legitimately a meaningless description. I find it very odd the README and repository description are completely devoid of any meaingful information.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#334

Post by singron »

bogomipz wrote: post #197

The article states: >"The primary targets of this campaign are Google and the IAB, which control the RTB system." Can someone say who makes up the IAB exactly? Is this just an industry trade group?

Yes. Take a look at their board of directors: https://www.iab.com/our-story/#board-of-directors

It's a mix of the major players in the digital advertising industry. Historically the IAB has taken actions that are good for the industry overall. It focuses on standardization/interoperability in the ad-tech space. It generally isn't a watchdog and doesn't regulate the industry except when the industry as a whole would benefit (e.g. self-regulatory programs that have no real effect but stave off state regulation).

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#335

Post by matempo33 »

Sad that Brave did not do their work correctly, the google_push parameter they are talking about is not an identifier. Otherwise it’s true that RTB should not exist and violate GDPR, but it’s so complex that even Brave was not able to correctly state the workflow.

See their release note (15 April 2013); https://developers.google.com/authorized-buyers/rtb/relnotes

“Starting in mid-April, we will begin assigning a URL-safe string value to the google_push parameter in our pixel match requests and we will expect that same URL-safe string to be returned in the google_push parameter you set. This change will help us with our latency troubleshooting efforts and improve our pixel match efficiency.”

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#336

Post by throwaway666666 »

aphextim wrote: post #271
philwelch wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly confident China (and for that matter Russia, but we all knew that) do this. As for tech companies, I would honestly mark a lot of that down to fanboyism. Not that I'd be entirely surprised, but I somewhat doubt that Elon Musk, in particular, is actually paying all of those people. And Tesla seems to have the most defensive supporters on the internet. People talk about Facebook and Google for their privacy…

Israel too. Link from them doing this in 2010. I highly doubt it has slowed down or stopped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LofScCiJT4c The question still remains, are corporations doing this actively/knowingly or is it only governments that are doing the shilling.

this is anti-semitic

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#337

Post by eitland »

hobofan wrote: post #117
intopieces wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should ads rule the web at all? Surely the cleverest engineers to walk the planet can come up with a new way of making money that doesn’t involve psychological manipulation.

> Surely the cleverest engineers to walk the planet can come up with a new way of making money that doesn’t involve psychological manipulation. If they could, they would've already done so. One of the things "the cleverest engineers to walk the planet" would probably need to do is to increase consumers willingness to pay for good content by a factor of ~10 for e.g. online newspapers with quality journalism to be prof…

> One of the things "the cleverest engineers to walk the planet" would probably need to do is to increase consumers willingness to pay for good content by a factor of ~10 for e.g. online newspapers with quality journalism to be profitable, which frankly sounds near-impossible.

After more than two decades newspapers still haven't figured out that even though I want to pay for good journalism I cannot subscribe to every newspaper there is, and I am a user who actively wants to pay.

I already voluntarily pay for two newspapers and involuntarily pay for the national news-and-a-little-propaganda service. Oh, and I donate to the Guardian half the time I visit them.

If more papers allowed me to pay per view I would likely spend more money on journalism.

But I'm not going to have another subscription right now, thanks.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#338

Post by briandear »

endorphone wrote: post #222
mumblemumble wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most interesting thing to me about that McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit is how different the narrative is in popular circles vs. in legal circles. It's a little bit like in Rashomon . In popular circles, the story is framed in a way that does make the lawsuit look frivolous. But this is also a case that has made it into the legal textbooks as an example of corporate negligence that's clear-cut enough to use for d…

Are you a lawyer? Because this take is quite remarkable, especially given that the overwhelming public sentiment is that McDonalds was heinously negligent, coupled with a lot of supporting but not entirely factual claims to justify that position. I feel like the same people who were jeering at the victim just marched over to sainting her and demonizing McDonalds. The Internet extreme position machine. Everything has…

> especially given that the overwhelming public sentiment is that McDonalds was heinously negligent

Citation needed. Anecdotally, every person I ever talked to about that case either had a profound eye roll or a shrug about how people will sue over anything.

If I bought a hammer and smashed my finger with it, should I sue Home Depot for selling me a hammer that was too hard and not warning me about it? That’s pretty much the basis of the McDonald’s case: they sold a hot beverage, some lady sticks it between her legs and it spills. A reasonable person could have foreseen that a hot beverage, stored in an insecure manner, could pose a spilling hazard and that hot liquids have the potential to scald. A woman in her 70s has been around enough hot liquids in her life that she should have known the risk of scalding. None of that is McDonald’s fault. It was just easy to manipulate the jury into the award by using emotion and painting McDonalds as some uncaring villain. That case was frivolous— but since it made it to the jury, the old lady won and now we all get to pay more when we buy coffee from restaurants to cover the higher insurance costs restaurants must now pass on to the customer.

Post reply on HN