<story><title>Privacy Sandbox – Open standards to enhance privacy on the web</title><url>https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/building-a-more-private-web/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Ajedi32</author><text>&amp;gt; &amp;quot;If y&amp;#x27;all had just handed over your wallet when we asked, we wouldn&amp;#x27;t have had to hurt you. So really, this is your fault.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Seeing as Google doesn&amp;#x27;t engage in fingerprinting and are actively taking steps to block it[1], I don&amp;#x27;t think this is a fair characterization of Google&amp;#x27;s position.&lt;p&gt;[1]: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;blog.chromium.org&amp;#x2F;2019&amp;#x2F;05&amp;#x2F;improving-privacy-and-security-on-web.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;blog.chromium.org&amp;#x2F;2019&amp;#x2F;05&amp;#x2F;improving-privacy-and-secu...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>danShumway</author><text>&amp;gt; &amp;quot;large scale blocking of cookies undermine people’s privacy by encouraging opaque techniques such as fingerprinting&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;If y&amp;#x27;all had just handed over your wallet when we asked, we wouldn&amp;#x27;t have had to hurt you. So really, this is your fault.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;More seriously, what Google is saying here is that privacy can&amp;#x27;t be mainstream. It&amp;#x27;s no different from the arguments that advertisers gave when they rejected DNT. They&amp;#x27;re willing to let a few privacy-minded people avoid being tracked, as long as that group never becomes a majority. But it was never their plan to get rid of tracking, every compromise they ever offered had the catch, &amp;quot;as long as it doesn&amp;#x27;t affect our bottom line.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s just another Equifax settlement. &amp;quot;Yeah we offered it, but we never assumed that so many of you would take it. Be reasonable.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Heck that. If you genuinely believe that people should have a choice about privacy, then you have to accept that maybe the majority of people will decide they don&amp;#x27;t want cookies. You have to take a step back and consider that browsers that block cookies by default are just reflecting what their users already widely want; people want their browsers to protect them from tracking by default, without configuration.You&amp;#x27;re not offering users a choice, you&amp;#x27;re just mad that you can&amp;#x27;t use dark patterns to make users unsafe-by-default.&lt;p&gt;This entire article is just insulting.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>danShumway</author><text>Google does engage in fingerprinting in multiple of its products, but even if it didn&amp;#x27;t I don&amp;#x27;t think I would change my analogy.&lt;p&gt;Google&amp;#x27;s position here is, &amp;quot;obviously you&amp;#x27;re going to have to let us track you &lt;i&gt;some way&lt;/i&gt;, and our way (cookies) is better than fingerprinting.&amp;quot; It&amp;#x27;s still blaming privacy-conscious users for the actions that advertisers have taken, because those unreasonable privacy-conscious people couldn&amp;#x27;t be content with just blocking some of the trackers.&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s an underlying tone to this article that reads as, &amp;quot;you all messed this up because you didn&amp;#x27;t just leave well enough alone. Now we&amp;#x27;ll come in and fix it, but you&amp;#x27;re gonna have to compromise with us when we do.&amp;quot; From my perspective -- no, users didn&amp;#x27;t break anything. This isn&amp;#x27;t our fault, and we should be allowed to broadly block cookies without being tracked in more pervasive ways.&lt;p&gt;But, if it makes you feel better you can change a word in my characterization to read:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &amp;quot;If y&amp;#x27;all had just handed over your wallet when we asked, &lt;i&gt;they&lt;/i&gt; wouldn&amp;#x27;t have had to hurt you. So really, this is your fault.&amp;quot;</text></comment>
<story><title>Privacy Sandbox – Open standards to enhance privacy on the web</title><url>https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/building-a-more-private-web/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Ajedi32</author><text>&amp;gt; &amp;quot;If y&amp;#x27;all had just handed over your wallet when we asked, we wouldn&amp;#x27;t have had to hurt you. So really, this is your fault.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Seeing as Google doesn&amp;#x27;t engage in fingerprinting and are actively taking steps to block it[1], I don&amp;#x27;t think this is a fair characterization of Google&amp;#x27;s position.&lt;p&gt;[1]: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;blog.chromium.org&amp;#x2F;2019&amp;#x2F;05&amp;#x2F;improving-privacy-and-security-on-web.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;blog.chromium.org&amp;#x2F;2019&amp;#x2F;05&amp;#x2F;improving-privacy-and-secu...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>danShumway</author><text>&amp;gt; &amp;quot;large scale blocking of cookies undermine people’s privacy by encouraging opaque techniques such as fingerprinting&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;If y&amp;#x27;all had just handed over your wallet when we asked, we wouldn&amp;#x27;t have had to hurt you. So really, this is your fault.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;More seriously, what Google is saying here is that privacy can&amp;#x27;t be mainstream. It&amp;#x27;s no different from the arguments that advertisers gave when they rejected DNT. They&amp;#x27;re willing to let a few privacy-minded people avoid being tracked, as long as that group never becomes a majority. But it was never their plan to get rid of tracking, every compromise they ever offered had the catch, &amp;quot;as long as it doesn&amp;#x27;t affect our bottom line.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s just another Equifax settlement. &amp;quot;Yeah we offered it, but we never assumed that so many of you would take it. Be reasonable.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Heck that. If you genuinely believe that people should have a choice about privacy, then you have to accept that maybe the majority of people will decide they don&amp;#x27;t want cookies. You have to take a step back and consider that browsers that block cookies by default are just reflecting what their users already widely want; people want their browsers to protect them from tracking by default, without configuration.You&amp;#x27;re not offering users a choice, you&amp;#x27;re just mad that you can&amp;#x27;t use dark patterns to make users unsafe-by-default.&lt;p&gt;This entire article is just insulting.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Fellshard</author><text>Doesn&amp;#x27;t reCaptcha alone rely extensively on fingerprinting?</text></comment>