Comment by jeroenhd
3 years ago
I can see the point here. Ad companies will track your browsing history. Google doesn't want to rely on cookies and fingerprints and probably wants to nuke tracking capabilities as well, but doing so in their browser while they still sell ads would be regulatory suicide.
Providing an open API for advertisers that doesn't require endless digital stalking is the only way Google will ever be able to enforce stricter anti tracking features. Their announcement that they were working on ending third party cookie tracking was met with threats of lawsuits and antitrust.
A locally classified list of topics that can be spoofed by the user agent is an excellent privacy measure. Nobody wants ads, but I'd rather have Chrome enable site isolation than the current status quo.
Honestly, I don't see the problem here. Your browsing history isn't submitted to Google according to the spec. There are aboit 8 bits of entropy for fingerprinting, but who cares when WebGPU and the canvas APIs provide ten times that already.
The privacy invasion argument seems to be "but it's based on my browsing history" which is exactly how all major advertisers have been doing it for the last ten years.
If this gets cancelled, Google isn't going to implement any anti tracking features in Chrome. They legally can't because of advertisers as scummy as them. They can choose between dropping their main source of income (lol), leaving Microsoft in charge of Chromium and killing Chrome (lol), do nothing against the current atate of the web amd tracking, or work with advertisers in a way that doesn't get them sued to hell over antitrust.
1. The argument that "it's been happening for the last ten years" is not a valid justification for the continuation of a practice that infringes on user privacy. Progress in digital privacy rights should aim at enhancing user control over their data, not maintaining status quo.
2. The suggestion that Google has only a limited choice between maintaining its main source of income or facing antitrust lawsuits is an oversimplification. Google, as one of the most influential tech companies, has the power and resources to innovate and find alternative models that respect user privacy while also providing value to their advertisers.
3. The idea that an API to track browsing history is a "privacy measure" because it can be "spoofed" by the user is flawed because it assumes all users have the technical knowledge and time to do so. This should not be a user's responsibility; privacy should be a default setting, not an option for the tech-savvy.
4. Lastly, just because the browsing history isn't directly submitted to Google does not mean it cannot be misused. Even if Google uses this data responsibly, the potential for abuse still exists with third parties
1. That's what they're doing. That's what this is.
2. That's what they're doing. That's what this is.
3. It's not a feature, it's an advantage for browsers like Firefox and Brave that happen to be made possible. Google sure won't advertise with it.
4. What data? Ad companies know through tracking that you've visit cars.com three times during lunch every work day except on your day off on Friday, who cares if they now get an API that says "I like cars".
1. The issue is not just about improving privacy; it's about the method involved. Using browsing history, personal data by nature, still raises significant privacy concerns, regardless of Google's intentions.
2. Trading privacy for utility. A truly innovative solution would respect privacy from the ground up, not pretending to retrofit privacy into an advertising model.
3. The nuance here is about "default" privacy. Even if the feature provides some privacy, it shouldn't require user intervention or tech prowess. Privacy should be a given, not a bonus.
4. The concern isn't just about "liking cars" but the ability to infer personal and sensitive information from gathered data. This may lead to the misuse of data by third parties, reinforcing the need for stringent privacy safeguards.
You know, they could ask people to select some of their interests to serve ads against. Would totally remove the privacy issue and the ads might finally be targeted towards something good.
Could even have a "suggest automatically" button.