[sandstrom]

> When Amazon allows any of the millions of ephemeral clone-storefronts to sell shady or illegal stuff, would you rather have the authorities spend years chasing ghosts or have Amazon change their rules to make sure such illegality and abuse aren't possible in their marketplace?

I'm fine with a law saying Amazon is liable for fake storefronts etc. Sounds reasonable. I'd also favor requiring e.g. Uber or Airbnb to provide authorities with data to prevent tax fraud from operators in such marketplaces.

But to me saying Google's advertising product should enforce how the individual websites work [fingerprinting], is to me more in the direction of "an electricity provider should enforce how people live their lives in any home provided by such electricity…"

[buran77]

> Google's advertising product should enforce how the individual websites work

"Google's advertising product" should do no such thing, the websites can go right ahead implementing whatever they dream of. Google "the company that develops the OS for my phone and the web browser" on the other hand is responsible for what tools and features it gives to those websites or apps to use on my device and without my explicit permission.

For example Google doesn't allow them to have root on your device, or covertly activate your microphone or camera. Why aren't you asking "who's Google to police what websites can do with my device, camera, and mic"?

> is to me more in the direction of "an electricity provider should enforce how people live their lives in any home provided by such electricity…"

Quite the opposite, Google or the electricity provider should enforce nothing on you or me. The analogy is more like the electricity provider allowing anyone to access information about what you do using that electricity. Why would the electricity provider have access to that information in the first place, and why would they be allowed to create interfaces that share that info with their partners?

If you're fine with Google allowing sites to collect this information from you, would you also be fine if your electricity provider allowed sites to collect info about how you use the electricity?

[IanCal]

> But to me saying Google's advertising product should enforce how the individual websites work [fingerprinting], is to me more in the direction of "an electricity provider should enforce how people live their lives in any home provided by such electricity…"

That's a wild analogy.

You're talking there about what I do in my home without impacting anyone else.

With google here we're talking about companies tracking users in a way likely to be illegal.

> But to me saying Google's advertising product should enforce how the individual websites work [fingerprinting],

This is about the advertisers.

[swores]

I completely disagree, and I'm someone whose interests would be best served by agreeing with you (my marketing agency spends a lot on advertising, and if the ad platforms don't have to enforce this sort of bad behaviour from other advertisers then prices could potentially fall as their expenses would)

Google's ad network isn't just dumb pipes for information like an ISP or an electricity provider, they're actively charging companies money in order to send whatever information to be displayed and code to be executed those companies want them to onto the screens of people that they're actively targeting. It should absolutely be Google's (or whatever ad network's) responsibility to not allow bad actors to use their services to spread viruses/malware, nor to allow even worse privacy evasion that they're already doing themselves such as allowing fingerprinting.

[unyttigfjelltol]

Isn't Google's relevancy here a result of their connection to the Chrome browser? The analogy vis-à-vis electricity is more like a vacuum cleaner manufacturer than power provider, although even that's weak because this is fundamentally about personal information being miscategorized as a commodity.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

This lacks nuance.

In many jurisdictions, you can charged, for not reporting someone else's crimes.

Even if Google should not be responsible for other sites doing [fingerprinting], the fact that they are enabling it should make them liable.

I don't think this is needed via ICO or via laws, to be clear. This can be a simple lawsuit. That's the right way to do things.

[gruez]

>In many jurisdictions, you can charged, for not reporting someone else's crimes.

Source? At least in the US, "duty to report" is limited to stuff like suspected child abuse.