Forum: Author Hangout

Google Privacy - Oxymoron?

Switch Blayde 🚫

Google a year ago announced it would ban some cookies in its Chrome browser to increase user privacy. Over the last two months, Google released more details, leading online ads rivals to complain about losing the data-gathering tool.

Google's plan to block a popular web tracking tool called "cookies" is a source of concern for U.S. Justice Department investigators who have been asking advertising industry executives whether the move by the search giant will hobble its smaller rivals, people familiar with the situation said.

Full article: https://www.fidelity.com/news/article/top-news/202103180603RTRSNEWSCOMBINED_KBN2BA10I-OUSBS_1

Replies: Ernest Bywater Keet Lazeez Jiddan (Webmaster)

Ernest Bywater 🚫

@Switch Blayde

Don't know why anyone is concerned about the issue as the EU requires websites to have a user 'opt in' before they can use cookies on what they send the user, and they also have to have the site able to work without cookies. On top of that, anyone who does anything about web security blocks all third party cookies and many block all cookies.

Replies: awnlee jawking

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

they also have to have the site able to work without cookies

Are you sure about that? I've encountered plenty of EU sites which won't let you in if you don't accept cookies.

AJ

Replies: Ernest Bywater bk69

Ernest Bywater 🚫
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

Are you sure about that? I've encountered plenty of EU sites which won't let you in if you don't accept cookies.

The reports I saw when the law was first passed said they had to make the site work without cookies. All of the public accessible parts were said to be available without any cookies at all. The only exceptions being the parts of the site that required you to log in with a user password and that could require acceptance of cookies to access.

edit to add: While I don't go to many EU websites, the ones I have been to allowed me access after I denied them cookie access.

Replies: Keet

Keet 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

edit to add: While I don't go to many EU websites, the ones I have been to allowed me access after I denied them cookie access.

Not all, there are plenty of sites that don't allow access if you don't accept cookies. Unlawful, yes, but apparently forcing them by law is unfortunately not a priority.

bk69 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Are you sure about that? I've encountered plenty of EU sites which won't let you in if you don't accept cookies.

I've seen a bunch that imply that. However, the question becomes whether or not the law applies to a server located outside the EU, for a site that is theoretically for a EU firm.

Replies: Ernest Bywater

Ernest Bywater 🚫

@bk69

I've seen a bunch that imply that. However, the question becomes whether or not the law applies to a server located outside the EU, for a site that is theoretically for a EU firm.

My understanding of the law, based on what was made public back when it was put in place, is that any company registered in the EU or has servers in the EU has to apply by the law. The same rules applied to the personal data privacy laws in the EU. That's why there was problem with Facebook, Google, et al, having servers outside of the EU with information on EU citizens. It's also why some European tech companies moved their operations out of the EU and closed down their EU offices after registering as new businesses in other countries. They still do business within the EU but operate as foreign companies.

Keet 🚫

@Switch Blayde

Google's plan to block a popular web tracking tool called "cookies" is a source of concern for U.S. Justice Department investigators who have been asking advertising industry executives whether the move by the search giant will hobble its smaller rivals, people familiar with the situation said.

It's a hollow action from Google and it does make it difficult for smaller rivals, if not impossible. The point is, Google doesn't need cookies anymore. They are not relying on them for some time now for main tracking but have stepped up their efforts in fingerprinting browsers which is much more difficult to counter but also much more difficult to use by competitors. Because of the huge amount of traffic they process they can build even better targeting although more in groups than on an individual level, which is more profitable anyway and easier to manage. Their plan to eliminate cookies is just to placate the EU so they can say 'see, we care about privacy' while they actually don't give a shit and just continue their data collection but with a different set of tools.

Lazeez Jiddan (Webmaster)

@Switch Blayde

Google a year ago announced it would ban some cookies in its Chrome browser to increase user privacy. Over the last two months, Google released more details, leading online ads rivals to complain about losing the data-gathering tool.

That is true. It's a move against rivals.

Due to Chrome's popularity (57% on SOL) google can track users without the need for cookies. So they're free to block user cross-site tracking using cookies because they don't really need it anymore. And that way, Google can point to their privacy policies and claim they're as good as Apple's.

Replies: bk69 Keet

bk69 🚫

@Lazeez Jiddan (Webmaster)

as good as Apple's.

Way to set a bar low...

Keet 🚫

@Lazeez Jiddan (Webmaster)

And that way, Google can point to their privacy policies and claim they're as good as Apple's.

Both Google and Apple look at privacy exactly the same. The grab every little piece of data they can from their users. The thing is, neither of them shares that data with third parties which makes it seem like they respect your privacy. That's distinctively different from the sewer of the internet called facebook who sells and shares everything they get if it brings in enough money. Google and Apple both make use of the fact they have exclusive use of the data they collect, which is just another way of milking everything they can out of your data.

Replies: Ernest Bywater

Ernest Bywater 🚫

@Keet

Google and Apple both make use of the fact they have exclusive use of the data they collect, which is just another way of milking everything they can out of your data.

While they may find the data for average users useful for targetted marketing, they must just about spit chips about the mess of data collection they get from us authors who do a lot of research on various things for our stories. Also, use of the right browser plus browser add on and a VPN will confuse the sheeit out of them a lot as well.

Replies: Switch Blayde Keet

Switch Blayde 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

the mess of data collection they get from us authors who do a lot of research on various things for our stories.

I'm always afraid I'll end up on the FBI's radar by doing searches on bomb making and such.

Replies: Ernest Bywater palamedes

Ernest Bywater 🚫

@Switch Blayde

I'm always afraid I'll end up on the FBI's radar by doing searches on bomb making and such.

Many years ago I learned that my involvement with a lot of 'suspect' topics on the Usenet Groups in the mid 1990s resulted in my name coming to the notice of the NSA via the Echelon Program process - discussions on atom bombs and government surveillance activities being a part of the reason the for them to go through the filters of the International Comms Intercepts of the program. About a decade later I learned the National Library of Australia bought a print copy of my book Zombie because the Australian intelligence people and the Australian Army wanted to see if I'd said anything in it that wasn't public domain information. Their interest was sparked by the fact I previously worked in parts of the Australian Dept of Defence where I could have had access to classified material for the area and time mentioned in the book. Luckily I didn't actually access such information and thus was unable to accidentally include any classified information in the story.

With the various things I've said on-line since then I'm sure I have a thick file with a number of US and Australian intelligence agencies. I also think it may be why the Commonwealth Solicitor refused to get involved with the court cases the NSW Gestapo started back in 2015.

palamedes 🚫

@Switch Blayde

I'm always afraid I'll end up on the FBI's radar by doing searches on bomb making and such.

I'm unable to remember which TV show (Criminal Minds or CSI) it was but one of the writers during the commentary of the episode talked about the FBI knocking on their door do to the type of research in hiding and disposal of a body,

Replies: Switch Blayde

Switch Blayde 🚫

@palamedes

the FBI knocking on their door do to the type of research in hiding and disposal of a body,

Haha. That's what I mean.

Keet 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

While they may find the data for average users useful for targetted marketing, they must just about spit chips about the mess of data collection they get from us authors who do a lot of research on various things for our stories. Also, use of the right browser plus browser add on and a VPN will confuse the sheeit out of them a lot as well.

They don't care about those few individuals, like researching authors, who have a skewed browser usage. It's about classifying the general mass of users for advertisement targeting. The few tech savvy users who know how to 'hide' (and are recognized for it) are just an interesting group in itself.
The only way to break parties like Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, etc., is to NOT use the Chrome browser, to block ALL advertising using a few plugins, and to consistently refuse to visit sites that don't allow access without the add-blocker being turned off. I know, it will never happen, but that is what would work.

Reply to topic

Forum: Author Hangout

Google Privacy - Oxymoron?

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...