You didn't read it did you. Google doesn't sell user data. They absolutely combine yours and mine and others into groups of Advertising ID numbers that are otherwise anonymized and use those baskets of users as available marketing groups. But the underlying data is never sold nor shared with the advertisers. Your article claims nothing different.
LOL. Will I have to wait long for you to prove I'm wrong?
Take it easy, just joking! But Google sell customer data and it's not alone. Those brave EU advertisers export collected data, of course GDPR conform, to third countries, usually US, India, etc, where this data is cross-referenced and sold by daughter companies to whoever.
No Google doesn't sell your data. Period. Their privacy policy is not all that unlike Apple's. Neither one allows for it.
How do you think Google will survive without selling your data?
The same way they always have. They take what they know about you and give you an Advertising ID number with various associated data points that identify your interests. That ID number is then combined with hundreds or thousands or millions of others with similar interests and/or demographics in a big ol' basket of unnamed consumers. Those baskets then become targeted groups an advertiser can advise Google they would like to include in a campaign. Google retains all the underlying data and the advertiser supplies the ad to put in front of you. A company like Ford, or Proctor and Gamble, or yes Apple, can then be more assured the ads they pay for are being presented to the most probable potential buyers.
If you own a company selling baby food you don't want to waste your money advertising to senior citizens, right? Apple doesn't care about putting MacPro ads in front of presumed poverty level consumers showing no interest in computers either. The more Google knows the more valuable its services are to an advertiser. The underlying user data is never sold nor shared with the advertiser.
Ford and Proctor&Gamble and Apple do not know specifically who you are until and unless you reach out to the company involved and tell them. Google didn't.
Now I'm definitively convinced that Gatorguy works at Google
Anyway Gatorguy should not be surprised that people don't trust companies like Google, F****bok & Co after what happened in the past. If Google really plays fair play should make mandatory an data collection on/off switch on any page where data is collected with Google tools. Period.
Now I'm definitively convinced that Gatorguy works at Google
Hey, welcome to AppleInsider new guy. Hope you stick around awhile, take advantage of all the learning opportuniites you have here. Our forums can be a great source of information, helping to disperse the FUD you find on lesser sites.
iOS should just have an option to block all advertising tracking globally, block it via web browser, block all in app advertising, block all pop up advertising, block all tracking. So there is no need to keep saying no.
LOL. Will I have to wait long for you to prove I'm wrong?
Take it easy, just joking! But Google sell customer data and it's not alone. Those brave EU advertisers export collected data, of course GDPR conform, to third countries, usually US, India, etc, where this data is cross-referenced and sold by daughter companies to whoever.
No Google doesn't sell your data. Period. Their privacy policy is not all that unlike Apple's. Neither one allows for it.
How do you think Google will survive without selling your data?
The same way they always have. They take what they know about you and give you an Advertising ID number with various associated data points that identify your interests. That ID number is then combined with hundreds or thousands or millions of others with similar interests and/or demographics in a big ol' basket of unnamed consumers. Those baskets then become targeted groups an advertiser can advise Google they would like to include in a campaign. Google retains all the underlying data and the advertiser supplies the ad to put in front of you. A company like Ford, or Proctor and Gamble, or yes Apple, can then be more assured the ads they pay for are being presented to the most probable potential buyers.
If you own a company selling baby food you don't want to waste your money advertising to senior citizens, right? Apple doesn't care about putting MacPro ads in front of presumed poverty level consumers showing no interest in computers either. The more Google knows the more valuable its services are to an advertiser. The underlying user data is never sold nor shared with the advertiser.
Ford and Proctor&Gamble and Apple do not know specifically who you are until and unless you reach out to the company involved and tell them. Google didn't.
You just said it yourself. From everything they know about me, they make an andvertension ID. Who they think they are? I don't want them to know anything about me. I don’t want their advertisements. They're not invited on my patry. They have no right to follow my search and behavior! But they are everywhere, with their Google Analytics. The arrogance of Google is endless. And I even don’t use Google...
LOL. Will I have to wait long for you to prove I'm wrong?
Take it easy, just joking! But Google sell customer data and it's not alone. Those brave EU advertisers export collected data, of course GDPR conform, to third countries, usually US, India, etc, where this data is cross-referenced and sold by daughter companies to whoever.
No Google doesn't sell your data. Period. Their privacy policy is not all that unlike Apple's. Neither one allows for it.
How do you think Google will survive without selling your data?
The same way they always have. They take what they know about you and give you an Advertising ID number with various associated data points that identify your interests. That ID number is then combined with hundreds or thousands or millions of others with similar interests and/or demographics in a big ol' basket of unnamed consumers. Those baskets then become targeted groups an advertiser can advise Google they would like to include in a campaign. Google retains all the underlying data and the advertiser supplies the ad to put in front of you. A company like Ford, or Proctor and Gamble, or yes Apple, can then be more assured the ads they pay for are being presented to the most probable potential buyers.
If you own a company selling baby food you don't want to waste your money advertising to senior citizens, right? Apple doesn't care about putting MacPro ads in front of presumed poverty level consumers showing no interest in computers either. The more Google knows the more valuable its services are to an advertiser. The underlying user data is never sold nor shared with the advertiser.
Ford and Proctor&Gamble and Apple do not know specifically who you are until and unless you reach out to the company involved and tell them. Google didn't.
You just said it yourself. From everything they know about me, they make an andvertension ID. Who they think they are? I don't want them to know anything about me. I don’t want their advertisements. They're not invited on my patry. They have no right to follow my search and behavior! But they are everywhere, with their Google Analytics. The arrogance of Google is endless. And I even don’t use Google...
Do you have a Google account? If not they don't know your name or collect "your" data. If you do then turn off/opt-out on any parts of it you don't think personally benefit you. Opt-out of it all if you think that's better.
Fun fact: Apple also tracks the effectiveness of ads put in from of you, and just as anonymously as Google.
Do you have a Google account? If not they don't know your name or collect "your" data. If you do then turn off/opt-out on any parts of it you don't think personally benefit you. Opt-out of it all if you think that's better.
Fun fact: Apple also tracks the effectiveness of ads put in from of you, and just as anonymously as Google.
No, I don’t. But when you read the “Private policy” of any website, you see always Google as a “partner“. And in this way, they are sitting again on your table ;~)
I opened the thread expecting to tell advertisers to go boil their collective heads, but actually there's a reasonable point in there; if European advertisers already need to ask permission to comply with GDPR then it doesn't make much sense for Apple to ask for permission for using the phone's hardware to deliver what the user has already agreed to. Not sure how you'd be able to combine the two in a user friendly way though.
problem is how this people trick you into acknowlegde cookies. for example. selecting the allowed cookies. grey for save. highlighted green for allow all. sure they are upset that apple wont let the mess with the gui element. Since GDPR and cookie permission is mandatory it is getting worse. Hope EU wont force Apple to change.
It actually gels with what quite a few people here have been saying over the years.
This is an indirect means of data sharing, but the end result is the same. Companies can upload lists of “anonymous” device IDs or phone numbers, and Google will connect those numbers to real people. Then, Google will serve ads to those people across its platforms: on their phones, computers, and TVs. Anyone who engages with those ads will be sent right to the advertiser’s landing page, where the advertiser can collect cookie IDs, IP address, location, and more. Researchers have found that this style of individual-targeting system exposes users to a wide range of privacy leaks.
Google gathers your personal data. Google gathers your anonymous data Google sells your anonymous data. Google sells a service, to just about anyone who hands them suitcase full of cash, which allows your "anonymous data" to be linked and stored against your personal data.
It's a bit like saying, "Hey I just sold him the gun, I didn't sell him the ammo."
Actually, its not really like that, is it? It's more like:
"Yes, I sold him the gun, and I sold him the ammo, but he's the one who loaded the gun with the ammo and then shot twenty people in a mall."
Now as you can see, folk are going to be evenly split on whether Google bears some responsibility or not, but what's fascinating to me is that this "one step removed" argument is something Google seems to use elsewhere when trying to evade responsibility.
Remember the the case they recently lost agains Oracle over the licensing of Java? It's the same thing again. Google said they didn't need to purchase a license because they were using it in a way that was not non-commercial. Their argument was that because Android is licensed for free then it could use Java for free. Of course, this is nonsense: Android is free, but Java makes Google 30% on every app they sell on their app store. Unsurprisingly, the judge didn't buy it.
But that's the trick, build in an artificial separation. Google is not selling your data directly, but they are selling a kit to allow others to rip off your personal data.
I see that GoogleGuy, has already jumped in with a WhatAboutIsm in which he will claim that Apple is doing the exactly the same thing, though he will not present any evidence to prove it.
But from Apple's actions over the past few years (the introduction of the anonymous sign-in, the increasing amount of safari blocks to ad tracking, attempts to fix the clipboard sharing problem), we can draw our own conclusions as to their intent.
Quite simply, Apple attempts to block the unfettered use of your personal data, Google enables it.
But thanks for the article. I shall print it out and pin it to the noticeboard at work (as soon as I'm allowed back in the office!)
Now I'm definitively convinced that Gatorguy works at Google
Hey, welcome to AppleInsider new guy. Hope you stick around awhile, take advantage of all the learning opportuniites you have here. Our forums can be a great source of information, helping to disperse the FUD you find on lesser sites.
I opened the thread expecting to tell advertisers to go boil their collective heads, but actually there's a reasonable point in there; if European advertisers already need to ask permission to comply with GDPR then it doesn't make much sense for Apple to ask for permission for using the phone's hardware to deliver what the user has already agreed to. Not sure how you'd be able to combine the two in a user friendly way though.
problem is how this people trick you into acknowlegde cookies. for example. selecting the allowed cookies. grey for save. highlighted green for allow all. sure they are upset that apple wont let the mess with the gui element. Since GDPR and cookie permission is mandatory it is getting worse. Hope EU wont force Apple to change.
Precisely.
Because the EU has no technical nonce whatsoever, they've allowed companies to implement GDPR pages that are so convoluted that uses will just agree without even attempting to protect their privacy. If they knew what they were doing then they would have made it a legal requirement to have a single click that would suppress all tracking in one shot.
I tried a Google search this morning, and because I haven't used Google in a while, it presented the tracking options page. No 'suppress all tracking' option and then a myriad of click throughs and options which are clearly meant to bore users into just clicking 'I agree'. As it happens the options page crashed while I was going through it (my ad blocker prevented it from making a request). Oh well, back to DDG.
It actually gels with what quite a few people here have been saying over the years.
This is an indirect means of data sharing, but the end result is the same. Companies can upload lists of “anonymous” device IDs or phone numbers, and Google will connect those numbers to real people. Then, Google will serve ads to those people across its platforms: on their phones, computers, and TVs. Anyone who engages with those ads will be sent right to the advertiser’s landing page, where the advertiser can collect cookie IDs, IP address, location, and more. Researchers have found that this style of individual-targeting system exposes users to a wide range of privacy leaks.
I see that GoogleGuy, has already jumped in with a WhatAboutIsm in which he will claim that Apple is doing the exactly the same thing, though he will not present any evidence to prove it.
Oh, I love a challenge Rayz, but this one was too easy and shows you wrong again. You could have found this yourself if you weren't so busy trying to make it personal.
Apple says "For specific advertising campaigns, advertisers may match information they have about their users with Apple’s information to create segments, which must contain at least 5,000 people. Advertisers can use an Advertising Identifier, or other information they have about users, such as a phone number or email, to match users to segments on Apple’s advertising platform. During the match process, these identifiers are obscured to limit personally identifiable information being disclosed. To choose which segments they match users to, Advertisers may use information they have from interactions with users. This information is acquired and used subject to the Advertisers’ own privacy policies." I don't expect you'll have any further comment.
It actually gels with what quite a few people here have been saying over the years.
This is an indirect means of data sharing, but the end result is the same. Companies can upload lists of “anonymous” device IDs or phone numbers, and Google will connect those numbers to real people. Then, Google will serve ads to those people across its platforms: on their phones, computers, and TVs. Anyone who engages with those ads will be sent right to the advertiser’s landing page, where the advertiser can collect cookie IDs, IP address, location, and more. Researchers have found that this style of individual-targeting system exposes users to a wide range of privacy leaks.
I see that GoogleGuy, has already jumped in with a WhatAboutIsm in which he will claim that Apple is doing the exactly the same thing, though he will not present any evidence to prove it.
Oh, I love a challenge Rayz, but this one was too easy and shows you wrong again. You could have found this yourself if you weren't so busy trying to make it personal.
Apple says "For specific advertising campaigns, advertisers may match information they have about their users with Apple’s information to create segments, which must contain at least 5,000 people. Advertisers can use an Advertising Identifier, or other information they have about users, such as a phone number or email, to match users to segments on Apple’s advertising platform. During the match process, these identifiers are obscured to limit personally identifiable information being disclosed. To choose which segments they match users to, Advertisers may use information they have from interactions with users. This information is acquired and used subject to the Advertisers’ own privacy policies." I don't expect you'll have any further comment.
It says: “For specific advertising campaigns.....”. Dus it is exception, It isn’t the rule
It actually gels with what quite a few people here have been saying over the years.
This is an indirect means of data sharing, but the end result is the same. Companies can upload lists of “anonymous” device IDs or phone numbers, and Google will connect those numbers to real people. Then, Google will serve ads to those people across its platforms: on their phones, computers, and TVs. Anyone who engages with those ads will be sent right to the advertiser’s landing page, where the advertiser can collect cookie IDs, IP address, location, and more. Researchers have found that this style of individual-targeting system exposes users to a wide range of privacy leaks.
I see that GoogleGuy, has already jumped in with a WhatAboutIsm in which he will claim that Apple is doing the exactly the same thing, though he will not present any evidence to prove it.
Oh, I love a challenge Rayz, but this one was too easy and shows you wrong again. You could have found this yourself if you weren't so busy trying to make it personal.
Apple says "For specific advertising campaigns, advertisers may match information they have about their users with Apple’s information to create segments, which must contain at least 5,000 people. Advertisers can use an Advertising Identifier, or other information they have about users, such as a phone number or email, to match users to segments on Apple’s advertising platform. During the match process, these identifiers are obscured to limit personally identifiable information being disclosed. To choose which segments they match users to, Advertisers may use information they have from interactions with users. This information is acquired and used subject to the Advertisers’ own privacy policies." I don't expect you'll have any further comment.
It says: “For specific advertising campaigns.....”. Dus it is exception, It isn’t the rule
Google also does it "for specific advertising campaigns", it's not the rule.
Most advertisers don't have their own established customer lists with associated personally identifiable data linked, nor do they necessarily want to limit themselves to existing customers or at least those who have contacted them previously. In fact no one I know running Google ad campaigns supplies Google with match information. That's for the big guys. What they do is pick anonymized Google ad categories relevant to their marketing they like to use for their ad campaign. They don't get the user lists. They don't get the user lists from Apple either for that matter.
Okay, you're defending Google. It's your right. But I also have the right to not trust Google.
Just two examples:
Example 1:
Some time ago, my wife received a letter by post from Google, in which they’ve suggested her, that they are willing to place ads on Internet for hers company. How does Google know about hers company ? Oh, yeah, my wife has G-mail. So, Google never reads e-mails?
Example 2:
Three students in the centrum of a city in Belgium, about a meter away from each other, did the same search in Google. And what do you think about the results? Google search results were different for each student.
Still confident in Google?
Look less at what Google writes about itself, but look at what they're doing. Then you will be less enthusiastic about your Google
Comments
Google does not sell user data. Period.
If you own a company selling baby food you don't want to waste your money advertising to senior citizens, right? Apple doesn't care about putting MacPro ads in front of presumed poverty level consumers showing no interest in computers either. The more Google knows the more valuable its services are to an advertiser. The underlying user data is never sold nor shared with the advertiser.
Ford and Proctor&Gamble and Apple do not know specifically who you are until and unless you reach out to the company involved and tell them. Google didn't.
Anyway Gatorguy should not be surprised that people don't trust companies like Google, F****bok & Co after what happened in the past.
If Google really plays fair play should make mandatory an data collection on/off switch on any page where data is collected with Google tools. Period.
https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/6139018?co=GENIE.Platform=Desktop&hl=en
https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7660719?hl=en
So there is no need to keep saying no.
You just said it yourself. From everything they know about me, they make an andvertension ID. Who they think they are? I don't want them to know anything about me. I don’t want their advertisements. They're not invited on my patry. They have no right to follow my search and behavior! But they are everywhere, with their Google Analytics. The arrogance of Google is endless. And I even don’t use Google...
Fun fact: Apple also tracks the effectiveness of ads put in from of you, and just as anonymously as Google.
It actually gels with what quite a few people here have been saying over the years.
Google gathers your personal data.
Google gathers your anonymous data
Google sells your anonymous data.
Google sells a service, to just about anyone who hands them suitcase full of cash, which allows your "anonymous data" to be linked and stored against your personal data.
It's a bit like saying, "Hey I just sold him the gun, I didn't sell him the ammo."
Actually, its not really like that, is it? It's more like:
"Yes, I sold him the gun, and I sold him the ammo, but he's the one who loaded the gun with the ammo and then shot twenty people in a mall."
Now as you can see, folk are going to be evenly split on whether Google bears some responsibility or not, but what's fascinating to me is that this "one step removed" argument is something Google seems to use elsewhere when trying to evade responsibility.
Remember the the case they recently lost agains Oracle over the licensing of Java? It's the same thing again. Google said they didn't need to purchase a license because they were using it in a way that was not non-commercial. Their argument was that because Android is licensed for free then it could use Java for free. Of course, this is nonsense: Android is free, but Java makes Google 30% on every app they sell on their app store. Unsurprisingly, the judge didn't buy it.
But that's the trick, build in an artificial separation. Google is not selling your data directly, but they are selling a kit to allow others to rip off your personal data.
I see that GoogleGuy, has already jumped in with a WhatAboutIsm in which he will claim that Apple is doing the exactly the same thing, though he will not present any evidence to prove it.
But from Apple's actions over the past few years (the introduction of the anonymous sign-in, the increasing amount of safari blocks to ad tracking, attempts to fix the clipboard sharing problem), we can draw our own conclusions as to their intent.
Quite simply, Apple attempts to block the unfettered use of your personal data, Google enables it.
But thanks for the article. I shall print it out and pin it to the noticeboard at work (as soon as I'm allowed back in the office!)
Oh dear.
Don't worry, got something for that:
Precisely.
Because the EU has no technical nonce whatsoever, they've allowed companies to implement GDPR pages that are so convoluted that uses will just agree without even attempting to protect their privacy. If they knew what they were doing then they would have made it a legal requirement to have a single click that would suppress all tracking in one shot.
I tried a Google search this morning, and because I haven't used Google in a while, it presented the tracking options page. No 'suppress all tracking' option and then a myriad of click throughs and options which are clearly meant to bore users into just clicking 'I agree'. As it happens the options page crashed while I was going through it (my ad blocker prevented it from making a request). Oh well, back to DDG.
Oh, I love a challenge Rayz, but this one was too easy and shows you wrong again. You could have found this yourself if you weren't so busy trying to make it personal.
Apple says
"For specific advertising campaigns, advertisers may match information they have about their users with Apple’s information to create segments, which must contain at least 5,000 people. Advertisers can use an Advertising Identifier, or other information they have about users, such as a phone number or email, to match users to segments on Apple’s advertising platform. During the match process, these identifiers are obscured to limit personally identifiable information being disclosed. To choose which segments they match users to, Advertisers may use information they have from interactions with users. This information is acquired and used subject to the Advertisers’ own privacy policies."
I don't expect you'll have any further comment.
Most advertisers don't have their own established customer lists with associated personally identifiable data linked, nor do they necessarily want to limit themselves to existing customers or at least those who have contacted them previously. In fact no one I know running Google ad campaigns supplies Google with match information. That's for the big guys. What they do is pick anonymized Google ad categories relevant to their marketing they like to use for their ad campaign. They don't get the user lists. They don't get the user lists from Apple either for that matter.