Google’s GDPR Workaround • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#371

Post by zajio1am » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

idlerig wrote: post #192

This is exactly what happened in the McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit. It wasn't some "Karen" who hit a bump while driving. It was an elderly woman (in her 70s, IIRC), sitting in the passenger seat. McDonalds already had complaints (and some lawsuits) over the (significantly higher than industry standard) temperature of their coffee, so this wasn't exactly out of the blue. She ended up with 3rd degree burns on her leg…

> This is exactly what happened in the McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit. ... But that's not the story that was spread by the shills...

Well, all of these changes (perhaps with the exception of industry standards) are IMHO irrelevant to responsibility of McDonald for the incident.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#372

Post by moate » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

apexalpha wrote: post #354

frogpelt wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason the McDonald's lawsuit is framed that way in popular circles is because it is easily fits the mold for a frivolous lawsuit. 1. A woman willingly purchased hot coffee from McDonald's. 2. She spilled it on herself. 3. She sued McDonald's because of her injuries. Those three things are true no matter which circle you ask. A lot of people I talk to, even when given all of the facts of the case still consider i…

I've heard this story numerous times as "haha in America X". Many of these stories go around the Netherlands... "in America someone sued McDonald's because the coffee was hot" "in America it says on the box to not microwave cats because someone once did" "in America you get a gun when you open a bank account" Etc.. Oh well I'm sure similar incorrect stories about Europe float around America.

American Here, sample size of 1:

Honestly, I don't think about Europe that much. America is huge (both geographically and population wise) and there's so much stuff going on nationally that there isn't enough bandwidth for most Euro stuff.

"Brexit seems like a mess" and "Boy the G7 didn't seem to go well" are the most recent thoughts I've had on Europe.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#373

Post by mintplant » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

bluesign wrote: post #305

I checked the sample log provided. Below is the google_gid for different publishers, there is no proof of overlap, they have different google_gid for same person. Which is exactly what google describes. [1] I don't understand what Brave claims. d.agkn.com CAESEP-S3Zs5f0_kq11XTCZP_mE id.rlcdn.com CAESEPpf2T4-2AsAR_4rer3RfNs image6.pubmatic.com CAESEB9H3qdV26kxEiz-BJ_TY-M pippio.com CAESEJyqG1Pg1j-_scqW8kDzTkg token.ru…

This log [0], right? Did you miss in the article that it's the `google_push` identifier that's being used for syncing between adtech companies? If you search for it (AHNF13KKSmBxGD6oDK9GEw5O0kvgmFa3qM30zpNaKl72Og), you can see it being included in requests to lots of different adtech firms' domains.

[0] https://brave.com/wp-content/uploads/files_2019-9-2/sample_p...

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#374

Post by korzun » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

hnarn wrote: post #279

GavinMcG wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HIPAA only keeps healthcare providers from sharing your information. It's not an omnibus shield for your health information. If Alice tells her coworker Bob that she had diabetes, it's not a HIPAA violation for Bob to tell Charlie.

> HIPAA only keeps healthcare providers from sharing your information. It's not an omnibus shield for your health information. Maybe not, but GDPR sure is.

[dead]

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#375

Post by lern_too_spel » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 5:42 PM UTC

moyix wrote: post #98

Iv wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?"

If I remember right, after the leaks the faux-sophisticated take was "well of course , everyone knew this was going on, are you naive?".

There were two faux-sophisticated takes. "See, I told you they were spying on everybody!" and "Everyone already knew they were spying on everybody!" Both were from the same group of conspiracy theorists who believed the US government was spying on everybody even after Snowden's massive leak showed they weren't.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#376

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 5:42 PM UTC

matempo33 wrote: post #335

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-…

[deleted]

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#377

Post by panpanna » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

Friendly reminder that this is all to show you "targeted ads".

You can fight back by providing fake and bogus data. For example, there are browser extensions that do this for you.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#378

Post by rubyn00bie » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

frogpelt wrote: post #224

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…

The reason the McDonald's lawsuit is framed that way in popular circles is because it is easily fits the mold for a frivolous lawsuit. 1. A woman willingly purchased hot coffee from McDonald's. 2. She spilled it on herself. 3. She sued McDonald's because of her injuries. Those three things are true no matter which circle you ask. A lot of people I talk to, even when given all of the facts of the case still consider i…

I'd suggest just reading about it instead of spewing ignorant nonsense, this is the whole problem with this exact example, it takes like two minutes to read but no one ever does:

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

I'd like to note:

> Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.

> Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury’s punitive damages award made headlines — upset by McDonald’s unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days’ worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain.

> The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and biomechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, the leading scholarly publication in the specialty.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#379

Post by daxorid » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

paulcole wrote: post #119

NullPrefix wrote: post #49

>I was branded as a 'privacy nut' Companies do actually employ shills to go on forums and try to sway public opinion. They call them something like public advocates, doesn't change the idea though.

What's more likely: that Google's willing to risk being outed for employing shills or that there are people who actually hold the opposing viewpoint? Personally I tend to think of most people on HN as privacy nuts. Honestly of all the problems in the world to get worked up over, online advertising is pretty low on my list. There's nothing I can do about Google/FB/whatever, so why even think about it. If Google or who…

online advertising is pretty low on my list

The threat that Google's tracking infrastructure represents is not limited to ads. If they stayed in their proverbial lane and used their panopticon exclusively to sell me things, many of us wouldn't mind as much as we do.

But they lend the power and reach of their machine to governments, whether it's China looking to smoke out dissidents, or the NSA PRISM program, or even the DEA itching to score another weed possession arrest, Google gladly and happily does whatever governments ask of them, frequently with no warrant required.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#380

Post by mintplant » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

matempo33 wrote: post #335

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-…

Okay, but the `google_push` parameter seems to be the same for all adtech providers swarming on the same user in the same RTB session. Nothing in your comment contradicts the claim that this allows them to sync up profiles for that user across providers, in the way that the switch to per-provider `google_gid` values supposedly blocks.