The article opens with "a shocking new tracking admission from Google, one that hasn’t yet made headlines, should be a serious warning...", but I can't figure out what they're referring to? The article discuss FLoC, but I don't think that can be it: that's had a lot of coverage (and the origin trial is on hold in response to feedback).
(Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)
I think it’s referring to Google saying FLoC is another fingerprinting vector.
> Not so, Google has suddenly now admitted, telling IETF that “today’s fingerprinting surface, even without FLoC, is easily enough to uniquely identify users,” but that “FLoC adds new fingerprinting surfaces.”
I agree the article takes a long time to get there. Maybe the author didn’t want to assume the Forbes general audience already knew the high-level details of FLoC.
I was honestly was looking for the same thing. Mostly skimmed the article as there wasn't something new in most of it but really not sure that the new shocking tracking admission is either.
It makes a far broader point (or, points) than that.
> If your browser is a privacy gamekeeper and those trackers are data poachers, then you probably don’t want them all sporting the same logos.
> Chrome is one of Google’s primary platforms for user data profiling
> “If you use Chrome, you give up your privacy,” my STC colleague Kate O’Flaherty warns this week.
> Chrome is an excellent browser—technically. But as with all platforms, apps and services, you always need to follow the money. Once you ask yourself is this a product I have paid for or am I the product, are others paying to access me, then you can start to make clearer choices.
> The FLoC origin trial enrolled millions of you without an opt-in or opt-out into a secretive trial that Google now admits added additional fingerprinting surfaces. That means you were more easily identified and profiled. That’s not okay. Similarly, having promised to ditch tracking cookies, Google changed its mind—again, not okay.
Yeah this is a non story. Delete Chrome because its not getting rid of this (admittedly anti-user prone) feature it's had since 1.0 is not very sudden.
Even as a Firefox user I don't see why that means you suddenly should get rid of Chrome.
I do hope Google keeps cracking at something to replace third party cookies with.
jefftk|4 years ago
(Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)
tkindy|4 years ago
> Not so, Google has suddenly now admitted, telling IETF that “today’s fingerprinting surface, even without FLoC, is easily enough to uniquely identify users,” but that “FLoC adds new fingerprinting surfaces.”
I agree the article takes a long time to get there. Maybe the author didn’t want to assume the Forbes general audience already knew the high-level details of FLoC.
geoah|4 years ago
uberswe|4 years ago
switch007|4 years ago
> If your browser is a privacy gamekeeper and those trackers are data poachers, then you probably don’t want them all sporting the same logos.
> Chrome is one of Google’s primary platforms for user data profiling
> “If you use Chrome, you give up your privacy,” my STC colleague Kate O’Flaherty warns this week.
> Chrome is an excellent browser—technically. But as with all platforms, apps and services, you always need to follow the money. Once you ask yourself is this a product I have paid for or am I the product, are others paying to access me, then you can start to make clearer choices.
> The FLoC origin trial enrolled millions of you without an opt-in or opt-out into a secretive trial that Google now admits added additional fingerprinting surfaces. That means you were more easily identified and profiled. That’s not okay. Similarly, having promised to ditch tracking cookies, Google changed its mind—again, not okay.
Multicomp|4 years ago
Even as a Firefox user I don't see why that means you suddenly should get rid of Chrome.
I do hope Google keeps cracking at something to replace third party cookies with.
nathan_phoenix|4 years ago