Google Taketh and Google Giveth. The former is always larger than the latter.
As has been said, "I'll believe it when I see it".
They (Google) won't be giving up all this lovely data that the get from cookies without having at least the same amount slurped by other means already in place.
Just avoid anything to do with Google if possible. Make them work really hard for the data that they steal from us. Don't give it to them on a plate.
The article implies Google will be going further with their browser privacy initiatives than even Apple. There's apparently a lot involved with the Privacy-First Web and Privacy Sandbox initiatives.
LOL no, this article implies Google is following in Apple's footsteps yet again. If Apple hadn't prioritized privacy and made it a competing selling point the past many years, and it working, Google wouldn't be doing the same.
Yes, of course "following in Apple's footsteps" while perhaps walking even a bit further than Apple is. The two statements are not mutually exclusive LOL
I don't see any reason to believe Google will be going further than Apple. Since none of this is real at the moment, no one knows. After all, Google is the company that illegally collected wifi data, and routinely ignored "Do not track me" user requests, came up w/ work-arounds, etc. They don't have a good track record when it comes to privacy wishes. Thus they do not get even the benefit of the doubt. And I doubt they will do more than Apple to maintain privacy.
And "not seeing any reason to believe Google" certainly fine, based stuff that happened several years ago, tho I'd note it certainly isn't the first time your assumptions have been just a tad off lately.
The article simply implies Google will go further, not stating as a fact that they will. Pretty sure that's what I said too. In fact it IS what I said.
Save your cutie-pie nonsense and say what you mean, as I have no idea what you're on about regarding my assumptions. Sounds like you need to revisit the golden rule w/ what you "assume" (emphasis on "u").
It's slightly disingenuous because Chrome ties in with Google's "web history" feature (which feeds your browsing history into their own data aggregation systems). So basically this just blocks *other* data aggregators (e.g. facebook), meaning only Google can do it.
Apple's Safari on the other hand doesn't building tracking information whatsoever. The history feature in Safari has no secret secondary function, it's for the user and only the user.
It's slightly disingenuous because Chrome ties in with Google's "web history" feature (which feeds your browsing history into their own data aggregation systems). So basically this just blocks *other* data aggregators (e.g. facebook), meaning only Google can do it.
Apple's Safari on the other hand doesn't building tracking information whatsoever. The history feature in Safari has no secret secondary function, it's for the user and only the user.
That's what Ars Technica is saying. Chrome itself will be the tracker now, not the cookies/tracking files (from the advertisers). Then Google will feed the advertisers your browsing info.
It's slightly disingenuous because Chrome ties in with Google's "web history" feature (which feeds your browsing history into their own data aggregation systems). So basically this just blocks *other* data aggregators (e.g. facebook), meaning only Google can do it.
Apple's Safari on the other hand doesn't building tracking information whatsoever. The history feature in Safari has no secret secondary function, it's for the user and only the user.
That's what Ars Technica is saying. Chrome itself will be the tracker now, not the cookies/tracking files (from the advertisers). Then Google will feed the advertisers your browsing info.
No, tracking you as a user is not at all what Ars says in their article. Did you read it? And where did you see where Google will feed your identifiable information to advertisers? I mean is that a real fact, some link or source for it, or just something you made up in the absence of, you know researching it? If you do the latter you'll discover any identifiable information will remain on your personal device. Nothing personally identifiable to advertisers will leave your computer or smartphone via Chrome.
EDIT: In case you don't really pay attention when reading, this is the pertinent clip from the Ars article you linked: ",,,before, through cookies, you would end up sending personal information and detailed browser history to various web ad servers, which could then build an ad interest file on you in the cloud. Now, Chrome will keep that detailed information locally and build an ad interest profile locally, and only the interest profile would be shipped to the advertisers for relevant ads through an open API."
It's slightly disingenuous because Chrome ties in with Google's "web history" feature (which feeds your browsing history into their own data aggregation systems). So basically this just blocks *other* data aggregators (e.g. facebook), meaning only Google can do it.
Apple's Safari on the other hand doesn't building tracking information whatsoever. The history feature in Safari has no secret secondary function, it's for the user and only the user.
That's what Ars Technica is saying. Chrome itself will be the tracker now, not the cookies/tracking files (from the advertisers). Then Google will feed the advertisers your browsing info.
No, tracking you as a user is not at all what Ars says in their article. Did you read it? And where did you see where Google will feed your identifiable information to advertisers? I mean is that a real fact, some link or source for it, or just something you made up in the absence of, you know researching it? If you do the latter you'll discover any identifiable information will remain on your personal device. Nothing personally identifiable to advertisers will leave your computer or smartphone via Chrome.
EDIT: In case you don't really pay attention when reading, this is the pertinent clip from the Ars article you linked: ",,,before, through cookies, you would end up sending personal information and detailed browser history to various web ad servers, which could then build an ad interest file on you in the cloud. Now, Chrome will keep that detailed information locally and build an ad interest profile locally, and only the interest profile would be shipped to the advertisers for relevant ads through an open API."
Locally means on your own device, and not shared.
I did read the article (and this one and this one and this one), and the concept is great IF I could configure Chrome to NOT generate the local detailed info that goes into the ad interest profile (that is sent to advertisers). As far as I'm concerned, once the local detailed info is created, it's at risk of being distributed. To me, locally != not shared; rather, not generated = not shared.
Google's business model is to monetize users' search habits. Obviously, it is very profitable. The Privacy Sandbox concept is to appear to users as a more private way to search, but who is really privatised? The users are privatised from the advertisers (but not from Google), since the advertisers will no longer be able to place trackers/cookies directly on the users' devices, but Chrome still collects the personal data in a local file.
From a very high level, I see this as a way for Google to increase its user data control over advertisers, and as a business move it is brilliant.
It's slightly disingenuous because Chrome ties in with Google's "web history" feature (which feeds your browsing history into their own data aggregation systems). So basically this just blocks *other* data aggregators (e.g. facebook), meaning only Google can do it.
Apple's Safari on the other hand doesn't building tracking information whatsoever. The history feature in Safari has no secret secondary function, it's for the user and only the user.
That's what Ars Technica is saying. Chrome itself will be the tracker now, not the cookies/tracking files (from the advertisers). Then Google will feed the advertisers your browsing info.
No, tracking you as a user is not at all what Ars says in their article. Did you read it? And where did you see where Google will feed your identifiable information to advertisers? I mean is that a real fact, some link or source for it, or just something you made up in the absence of, you know researching it? If you do the latter you'll discover any identifiable information will remain on your personal device. Nothing personally identifiable to advertisers will leave your computer or smartphone via Chrome.
EDIT: In case you don't really pay attention when reading, this is the pertinent clip from the Ars article you linked: ",,,before, through cookies, you would end up sending personal information and detailed browser history to various web ad servers, which could then build an ad interest file on you in the cloud. Now, Chrome will keep that detailed information locally and build an ad interest profile locally, and only the interest profile would be shipped to the advertisers for relevant ads through an open API."
Locally means on your own device, and not shared.
I did read the article (and this one and this one and this one), and the concept is great ....
Google's business model is to monetize users' search habits. Obviously, it is very profitable. The Privacy Sandbox concept is to appear to users as a more private way to search, but who is really privatised? The users are privatised from the advertisers (but not from Google), since the advertisers will no longer be able to place trackers/cookies directly on the users' devices, but Chrome still collects the personal data in a local file.
From a very high level, I see this as a way for Google to increase its user data control over advertisers, and as a business move it is brilliant.
If it's a local file that means the contents are not shared with Google doesn't it? Local means it's not sent to the cloud, for example Google servers. There's a number of Google processes now done directly on a users Pixel phone rather than being sent to the cloud, ie Google. Speech processing is one of those, it works completely off-line (since 2019) and is not shared with Google at all unless you choose to do so.
Comments
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3295329/#Comment_3295329
What you assumed may be very incorrect. IMO there's no reason to believe your assumption here is any more correct
Apple's Safari on the other hand doesn't building tracking information whatsoever. The history feature in Safari has no secret secondary function, it's for the user and only the user.
EDIT: In case you don't really pay attention when reading, this is the pertinent clip from the Ars article you linked:
",,,before, through cookies, you would end up sending personal information and detailed browser history to various web ad servers, which could then build an ad interest file on you in the cloud. Now, Chrome will keep that detailed information locally and build an ad interest profile locally, and only the interest profile would be shipped to the advertisers for relevant ads through an open API."
Locally means on your own device, and not shared.
Google's business model is to monetize users' search habits. Obviously, it is very profitable. The Privacy Sandbox concept is to appear to users as a more private way to search, but who is really privatised? The users are privatised from the advertisers (but not from Google), since the advertisers will no longer be able to place trackers/cookies directly on the users' devices, but Chrome still collects the personal data in a local file.
From a very high level, I see this as a way for Google to increase its user data control over advertisers, and as a business move it is brilliant.