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

491–500 of 629 posts

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#491

Post by gpderetta »

v7p1Qbt1im wrote: post #72
hexadec wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very not legal, but I think the parent was saying these regulations are more onerous to small dev shops rather than Google and the fine for this will be minuscule. Hopefully companies will find paths to revenue that do not require selling out there users to this level, maybe by just having ad auctions without any identifying information at all.

Like it or not. Currently the internet would not exist without the ad-supported business model. Regular users expect everything on the internet to be free. I know people that categorically refuse to buy a 1-dollar app. It‘s starting to change now with people getting used to subscription models (Netflix, etc). But it will take a while until we start paying for news again, for example. Apple news + and google news init…

GDPR does not prohibit ads.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#492

Post by bluesign »

avanderveen wrote: post #488
joefkelley wrote: post #421

I'm an engineer who has worked on ad systems like this and I'm really struggling to make sense of this article - what hope does a layman have? Here's my understanding: Google runs real-time bidding ad auctions by sending anonymized profiles to marketers, who bid on those impressions. The anonymous id used in each auction was the same for each bidder, which is in violation of GDPR. If Google were to send different ids…

This is a problem because companies can use this ID to correlate private user data, without anyone's knowledge or consent. There are companies that specialise in sharing user information. Some of them work by only sharing data with companies that first share data with them (an exchange). If you got this Google ID, and you had a few other pieces of information about the user, you could share that data with an exchange…

Considering google_gid is valid for you for 14 days only. It is very unlikely to build a profile around it.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#493

Post by senegoid »

The sharing of data is what makes RTB valuable and most likely viable.

Because what Google are doing is not dissimilar to how any other RTB participant is acting, saying this is a Google workaround seems disingenuous.

Unfortunately I fear this will only embolden Google to further monopolize digital advertising.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#494

Post by mottosso »

aledalgrande wrote: post #404
teamspirit wrote: post #187

I think the HN community, and most consumers, tend to look at things from only one angle. Imagine you start work at some small shop that manufacturers widgets for consumers. What would you do when you have to advertise your product? You'd have to turn to Google is a similar company. Are there any real alternatives? (I am asking because I really want to know) I say this because I am in this position now. I have to fig…

You find your audience and you target them directly.

Yes, thank you. I logged in just so that I could upvote this. Why isn't this more accepted of an answer? Why is spam everyone's goto?

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#495

Post by matempo33 »

mintplant wrote: post #380
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.

Well, for 2 page views (same session), I have 2 different ‘google_push’ (Chrome with default parameters, no extensions).

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#496

Post by auslander »

panpanna wrote: post #368
rat9988 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a reason they didn't. They fear the US government's reaction. Edit: Why downvote? Do you really think that the US government will stay silent if the European Union threatens with such fines? Political tensions are something you take heavily into account.

EU should ignore the fines this time and start an "information campaign" regarding behavior of Google and others. I bet that hurts Google 10 times more.

> I bet that hurts Google 10 times more.

Nah. Too big to bother.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#498

Post by foxhill »

bluesign wrote: post #486
mintplant wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

There is unfortunately no way to prevent that part. BidRequest Data [0] and Request Time is already enough to fingerprint the user. "Google prohibits multiple buyers from joining their match tables." part is not technical, it is contract based. [0] Sample Data from Bid Request ip: "F\303\006" user_agent: "Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 7.1.1; Pixel XL Build/NOF26V) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/56.0.2924…

> There is unfortunately no way to prevent that part.

“there is no way for google to operate under the GDPR and provide targeted advertising” ?

i’m inclined to agree :/

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#499

Post by auslander »

icebraining wrote: post #61
owenmarshall wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your other claims are more reasonable. But they would lead me to the conclusion we need bigger fines on bigger businesses. Not absolutely bigger, as the law already does, but relatively bigger. The more power you have to break the law, the bigger the stakes should be. GDPR penalties are a flat fee or a percentage of revenue, whichever is higher . If Google is truly willfully violating the GDPR, the maximum penalty…

> Will the EU actually fine Google ~6 billion dollars? Perhaps we will find out!) The EU already fined Google a total of $9 billion over the last two years.

Did Google pay all of it yet?

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#500

Post by downandout »

Yeah. Brave is desperately trying to compete with Chrome and can’t figure out why they aren’t making much headway, despite having better privacy (hint: users just don’t care about privacy, except for the HN crowd).

These complaints filed by Brave, with their own employees posing as professional “victims” intentionally grasping at straws for evidence of privacy violations, smack of desperation. This is not the first claim they have filed, and sadly, it won’t be the last. Their claims thus far have been disingenuous at best, downright dishonest at worst.

GDPR was not meant as a weapon with which one could hobble their far more successful competitors. It’s sad to see that a company that claims to care so much about privacy is undermining GDPR by bringing the worst fears of those that opposed it to life.

Post reply on HN