Google Chrome browser privacy plan investigated in UK:
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said Google's plan could have a "significant impact" on news websites and the digital advertising market.
It had already raised concerns that publishers' profits could sink if they were unable to run personalised ads.
But Google said digital advertising practices had to "evolve".
[...] But Google intends to go further by ending support for all cookies except first-party ones - those used by sites to track activity within their own pages.
It wants to replace them with new tools that give advertisers more limited, anonymised information such as how many users visited a promoted product's page after seeing a relevant ad - but not tie this information to individual users.
[...] "Google's Privacy Sandbox proposals will potentially have a very significant impact on publishers like newspapers, and the digital advertising market. But there are also privacy concerns to consider," said Andrea Coscelli, chief executive of the CMA.
At that point it acknowledged that while there were benefits to consumers from the kinds of privacy measures Google was proposing, they might be outweighed by other concerns.
It added that "many news publishers" had expressed concern that their news sites would become "unsustainable".
[...] Last November, the government announced it would create a new Digital Markets Unit within the CMA.
The organisation subsequently detailed how it would to govern the behaviour of Google, Facebook and other tech platforms "that currently dominate" online markets, and give consumers "more control over how their data is used".
(Score: 4, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Saturday January 09 2021, @08:31AM (2 children)
Only the user should have any say about their data, but evidently advertisers have better lobbyists, even across the pond. Isn't Europe supposed to be above all that?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 09 2021, @03:53PM
Oh, do try to keep up. Brexit. Last week, they tied a bunch of tugboats to the UK, and towed them out to sea. The UK is no longer in Europe. ;^)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fakefuck39 on Saturday January 09 2021, @04:57PM
advertisers and anyone else have the same amount of say and consideration. that's called a democracy, where all people, including ones you don't like and ones you disagree with have a say in laws and regulations. while I am on the same side as you on *me* not considering what they say, and being against what they say, that's just two parties that want different things, and there are simply more of us than there are of them.
their case is a strawman, because these people originally used to be a paper newspaper. they printed ads, and anyone holding the newspaper saw those non-personalized ads. if they are now claiming that without the more effective targeted ads they don't get enough revenue to survive as a company, then i guess they don't have a viable business. but it is by no means unreasonable for us to expect them to try and identify us as a user, just like it's not unreasonable for them to expect us to hide any and all personal data.
there should be no law or regulation on any of this, and the government is overstepping its authority trying to govern this.
the issue with gooble is they are the main culprit and enemy of the user, and their solution is not designed for privacy. it's simply designed to give them a monopoly - by them hiding your info in this privacy lockbox, with them the only ones holding the keys. but here's the thing - don't use their fucking browser if that's important to you. there are a million browsers and extensions to take care of this.
so why are we fighting this fight when there is no fight, since the user has a choice? why do some tech people think it's their mighty quest to protect the dumb public's privacy, when that dumb public couldn't care less? that's because they want to feel important and superior, and appear like they're doing something. it's similar to the hipster suburbarats sheltered white kids fighting for black rights while crossing the street when they see a black guy with his pants down to his knees while walking around the city.
consumers currently have full control of their data. they're free not to use services and software that collect it, and choose one of the hundreds of alternatives. they don't care - so let them not care. you care, so you do you, and stop pushing things important to you onto everyone else.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday January 09 2021, @09:08AM (1 child)
Clearly this is a move by Google to capture the advertisement market. So you'd think you'd want to be rooting for anyone who gets in their way - like one normally would for any regulation brought upon any monopoly, right?
Only in this case, if Google is stopped, all it means is that more advertisers will feed off your cookies like maggot files on an open wound.
Is online advertising a hateful industry or what, when, for once, it causes you not to want Google stopped in its monopolistic tracks?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2021, @03:54PM
Funny typo. Maggot files. I hate getting those on a computer, or phone, or whatever. ;^)
(Score: 1) by sigterm on Saturday January 09 2021, @09:36AM (2 children)
This is a very clever move by Google/Alphabet, to preempt any legislative measures by the EU (or even the U.S.) to limit their data gathering practices. They obviously have grown tired of repeatedly having to pay massive fines.
Alphabet is the largest actor in the online advertising field by far, and they also control online search (Google), the largest video sharing platform (YouTube), and the most popular web browser (Chrome). That's an awful lot of power. But still people in the advertising field chose to rely on and even partner with Google, their largest competitor. Why?
Listen, plebs: Google has altered the deal. Pray they do not alter it any further.
On a side note, journalists employed at "many news publishers" were only too happy to see their ideological opponents being de-ranked in search results by Google and deplatformed from YouTube. Seems the shoe is on the other foot now. I guess they should probably learn to code.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2021, @03:41PM
When I read the word 'journalist' I think 'layperson'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2021, @03:52PM
I understand the "oppose everything Google says" feeling, but I'm having a problem understanding the issue here. It appears the 3rd party advertisers are the ones most affected here and that web sites who use them will need to change to serving up their own cookies. Isn't that what we all have been asking for? I'm confident those 3rd party providers will pivot and come up with software to sell/rent to web sites for them to serve their ads directly, and I cynically think that this puts an impediment in their way for cross site/perpetual tracking that they'll find a way around, but are you suggesting that we shouldn't support this move or that it would have been better if the government came up with the idea first and imposed it upon Google?
(Score: 3, Disagree) by maxwell demon on Saturday January 09 2021, @10:30AM (2 children)
I would applaud Google's move if they weren't in the advertising business themselves and at the same time controlled a major platform (Android), the most popular browser (Chrome), some of the most popular web site services all running on their systems (Analytics, Recaptcha, Tag Manager) as well as some of the most popular end user sites (Search, GMail, YouTube, Maps …). I'm pretty sure they can get most of the data for most of the users by other means. So in the end, I expect it doesn't as much improve your privacy as it gives Google an advantage over other advertisers.
I think Google's advertising business should be separated from Google's other activities into an independent company. Of course that would still allow other Google sites to earn money through ads, the same way as non-Google sites do: By using an advertising provider, the one split away from Google or any other, under the same terms as anyone else.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Saturday January 09 2021, @11:22AM (1 child)
So you think you can weaken Google by allowing other advertisers as much power as possible to balance them somehow? That's wishful thinking. My attitude is fuck advertisers and especially fuck their third party cookies.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Saturday January 09 2021, @12:09PM
I'm all for restricting the advertiser's ability to track users. But I'm not for restricting all advertisers except Google. Only Google having the ability would be worse than all advertisers having the ability. Of course, the best would be that no advertiser has the ability. And if the ad business were split off of Google, then they could make credible moves to restrict advertisers.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2021, @01:25PM
Who knew? If only this was sustainable! This will be the end of the internet as we know it! What will we do without news?