Comment by lordlimecat

6 years ago

>which improves everyone's privacy, that's a good thing!

Except it does not affect Google, because Google has this install ID to use both for tracking and preventing ad-fraud.

Which means Google competitors are terribly disadvantaged, as they cannot use that.

Which not only reduces market diversity (contrary to TAG philosophy) but represents a significant conflict of interest for an organization proposing a major web standard change.

These issues are very relevant to the original proposal, especially in light of the fact that Noone outside of Google is terribly interested in this change. Any time a dominant player is the strongest (or only) advocate for a change that would coincidentally and disproportionately benefit its corporate interests, the proposal should be viewed very skeptically.

18 comments

lordlimecat

Reply
d1zzy  6 years ago

> Except it does not affect Google, because Google has this install ID to use both for tracking and preventing ad-fraud.

So when Apple releases a privacy feature, that doesn't affect them as a business, we praise the feature or we say "except it doesn't affect Apple" and somehow try to argue how the feature is less valuable because of that?

  • BoorishBears  6 years ago

    Of course we'd say "except it doesn't affect Apple"...

    If there's a privacy gap, (and Apple is actively exploiting that gap)

    When Apple patches it, (while leaving it open for themselves)

    They'll get called out.

  • dessant  6 years ago

    Apple is not engaged in illegal data harvesting to gain a competitive advantage over other services in the same space. Google's collection of personal data with the x-client-data header without user consent is illegal under GDPR.