https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/07/google_privacy_sandbox/

Thu 7 Sep 2023 // 21:08 UTC

Excerpt:
"Google's Privacy Sandbox is now open for business, the search
advertising behemoth said today.

Specifically, the web giant's Privacy Sandbox APIs, a set of ad
delivery and analysis technologies, now function in the latest version
of the Chrome browser. Website developers can thus write code that
calls those APIs to deliver and measure ads to visitors with
compatible browsers.

That is to say, sites can ask Chrome directly what kinds of topics
you're interested in – topics automatically selected by Chrome from
your browsing history – so that ads personalized to your activities
can be served. This is supposed to be better than being tracked via
third-party cookies, support for which is being phased out. There are
other aspects to the sandbox that we'll get to."

<Reg@invalid.com> wrote
| Excerpt:
| "Google's Privacy Sandbox is now open for business, the search
| advertising behemoth said today.
|

Interesting, isn't it? They're calling it a token. Your interests
will be stored without your name. Ads will then be based on
the token. I doubt websites will be able to do much more
than order an ad and maybe specify a desired token range.
This is a lot like what the Brave browser people were trying
to do: Become a middleman to the Internet, blocking out
all the other scavengers in the name of privacy, while they
take a cut of all interactions. One vulture gets the whole kill.
Though it's actually worse than that because the software
that's meant to be a neutral medium is being hijacked, like
the mafia taking over all the banks and charging transaction
fees.

Of course, Google can still connect the dots for your ID
because they're also tracking you with the ubiquitous webpage
links to google-analytics, googletagmanager, gstatic, maps,
fonts, and so on. Websites are as much addicted to Google's
free stuff as is the average gmail-and-chome-using sucker.

I wouldn't be surprised if Google sets up a side business
selling more specific data. A company selling porn shows you
an ad because Google says you like porn. Then they pay Google
for enough info to mail you an appropriately sized cock ring
as a free gift, with an invitation to subscribe. You then figure
it must be just a weird coincidence. Your wife thinks it's your
girlfriend. Your boss finds out and decides that you're not
worth the risk of a sexual harassment lawsuit from some
employee who doesn't feel "safe" around you... Great fun
had by all. :)

Reg@invalid.com wrote:
> https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/07/google_privacy_sandbox/
>
> Thu 7 Sep 2023 // 21:08 UTC
>
> Excerpt:
> "Google's Privacy Sandbox is now open for business, the search
> advertising behemoth said today.
>
> Specifically, the web giant's Privacy Sandbox APIs, a set of ad
> delivery and analysis technologies, now function in the latest version
> of the Chrome browser. Website developers can thus write code that
> calls those APIs to deliver and measure ads to visitors with
> compatible browsers.
>
> That is to say, sites can ask Chrome directly what kinds of topics
> you're interested in ? topics automatically selected by Chrome from
> your browsing history ? so that ads personalized to your activities
> can be served. This is supposed to be better than being tracked via
> third-party cookies, support for which is being phased out. There are
> other aspects to the sandbox that we'll get to."

Not to defend Google, but trying to be objective and fair:

This 'feature' was *announced* in Chrome when it was released and the
relevant settings ('Ad privacy' (under the 'Privavy and security' tab))
were automatically shown and could be changed. I don't remenber which
ones -if any - were on by default, I just turned all three off ('Ad
topics', 'Site-suggested ads' and 'Ad measurement').

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

| Not to defend Google, but trying to be objective and fair:
| | This 'feature' was *announced* in Chrome when it was released and the
| relevant settings ('Ad privacy' (under the 'Privavy and security' tab))
| were automatically shown and could be changed. I don't remenber which
| ones -if any - were on by default, I just turned all three off ('Ad
| topics', 'Site-suggested ads' and 'Ad measurement').

That's the excuse they all use. "What? You can block cookies
in IE by just going to Tools -> Internet Options -> Privacy ->
Advanced. " They know perfectly well that 95% of people
don't even know about settings. Of the people who do, very
few will be able to understand the implications, even if they ever
learn that Google has done this.

Google are making the system default and phasing out
3rd party cookies. Most people will never have any inkling about
any of this, though some may scratch their heads when a
site stops working because it required 3rd-party cookies. Most
people don't even know what a browser is. They click the
button on their computer that shows them the Internet.
What OS do they have? "OS? It's the computer. The one that
has the Internet."

Even tech-aware people mostly don't understand these things.
Look at gmail. That sleazeware got its start by inviting
tech workers to a beta test. Being invited tickled their vanity,
even though they should have known better.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
>
> | Not to defend Google, but trying to be objective and fair:
> |
> | This 'feature' was *announced* in Chrome when it was released and the
> | relevant settings ('Ad privacy' (under the 'Privavy and security' tab))
> | were automatically shown and could be changed. I don't remenber which
> | ones -if any - were on by default, I just turned all three off ('Ad
> | topics', 'Site-suggested ads' and 'Ad measurement').
>
> That's the excuse they all use. "What? You can block cookies
> in IE by just going to Tools -> Internet Options -> Privacy ->
> Advanced. " They know perfectly well that 95% of people
> don't even know about settings. Of the people who do, very
> few will be able to understand the implications, even if they ever
> learn that Google has done this.

As I said, the *change* was *announced* *in Chrome* and the relevant
settings were *automatically* shown. Nothing underhanded about that.

> Google are making the system default and phasing out
> 3rd party cookies.

So what remains is what is the situation for a *new* user/installation
of Chrome?

You say the new *system* is/will_be the default. But what as the
default *settings* for this 'Ad privacy' section. Do you *know*, or do
you just suspect, due to your bias?

As I said:

> | Not to defend Google, but trying to be objective and fair:

Are you objective and fair?

[More rants deleted.]

On 10/09/2023 18:31, Newyana2 wrote:
> Google are making the system default and phasing out
> 3rd party cookies. Most people will never have any inkling about
> any of this, though some may scratch their heads when a
> site stops working because it required 3rd-party cookies. Most
> people don't even know what a browser is. They click the
> button on their computer that shows them the Internet.
> What OS do they have? "OS? It's the computer. The one that
> has the Internet."
Actually, most people are unlikely to have any problems with their
browsers, websites or their computers because they are not paranoid
about privacy to mess around with computer settings or browser settings.
They have default settings that works all the time. You have problems to
write that non-sense piece above because you are paranoid about
everything. You don't carry a cell phone or you don't have fully
functional web browser because of all the scripts blocking your
computer. You think you are protected when life without google or
Microsoft is non-existent in this world. These two can't be blocked no
matter what you claim in these newsgroups.

Do you live in a modern house or are you just a gypsy travellor living
in a caravan?

"John Smith" <invalid@invalid.net> wrote

> These two can't be blocked no matter what...

Then why are you so upset about me doing it? There
are actually other people who think regulation of sleazy
tech companies, and an expectation of privacy, are
not paranoid ideas. It's called Europe.

I think of it as generally analogous to Bell Telephone.
Bell had patents on phones. They controlled the market
and kept prices high. The only choice was to rent a phone
from them. Phones couldn't be bought. Finally they got
broken up and today we have more options, because phones
are now a ubiquitous utility.

In the same way, we're living through a similar transition.
A few companies have managed to create lucrative
monopolies, based on an outdated idea that they're crucial
innovators, but computing and the Internet are too
important to let private, for-profit companies own them.

Most people don't see that yet because they just want
convenience, so they make up lazy excuses: "Oh, you
can't stop all this spying anyway, so you're paranoid if
you try." But some are starting to think about what the
public utility of the information superhighway should look
like. Scandals like Cambridge Analytica making Brexit happen,
and Russian Facebook posts pushing Trump, have made
some people think twice.

In the 2016 election, Eric
Schmidt actually offered a deal to Hillary Clinton to virtually
give her the election by targetting voters individually, using
the Google spyware database. If you don't think that's a
problem that free citizens should care about then maybe
you don't deserve to live in a democracy.

http://www.itwire.com/government-tech-policy/75531-google-s-schmidt-drew-up-draft-plan-for-clinton-in-2014.html

(That page is now gone, but if you're curious you can try
archive.org or do a search. History doesn't last long in the
information age, ironically.)

It's really very simple: Google, Apple, Zuck and Microsoft
don't own your computer, or the Internet, and there's no
reason to give it to them. So I share information to help
people help themselves. Sorry if I interrupted your shopping.

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 08:11:03 -0400, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"John Smith" <invalid@invalid.net> wrote
>
>> These two can't be blocked no matter what...
>
> Then why are you so upset about me doing it? There
>are actually other people who think regulation of sleazy
>tech companies, and an expectation of privacy, are
>not paranoid ideas. It's called Europe.
>
> I think of it as generally analogous to Bell Telephone.
>Bell had patents on phones. They controlled the market
>and kept prices high. The only choice was to rent a phone
>from them. Phones couldn't be bought. Finally they got
>broken up and today we have more options, because phones
>are now a ubiquitous utility.
>
> In the same way, we're living through a similar transition.
>A few companies have managed to create lucrative
>monopolies, based on an outdated idea that they're crucial
>innovators, but computing and the Internet are too
>important to let private, for-profit companies own them.
>
> Most people don't see that yet because they just want
>convenience, so they make up lazy excuses: "Oh, you
>can't stop all this spying anyway, so you're paranoid if
>you try." But some are starting to think about what the
>public utility of the information superhighway should look
>like. Scandals like Cambridge Analytica making Brexit happen,
>and Russian Facebook posts pushing Trump, have made
>some people think twice.
>
> In the 2016 election, Eric
>Schmidt actually offered a deal to Hillary Clinton to virtually
>give her the election by targetting voters individually, using
>the Google spyware database. If you don't think that's a
>problem that free citizens should care about then maybe
>you don't deserve to live in a democracy.
>
>http://www.itwire.com/government-tech-policy/75531-google-s-schmidt-drew-up-draft-plan-for-clinton-in-2014.html
>
>(That page is now gone, but if you're curious you can try
>archive.org or do a search. History doesn't last long in the
>information age, ironically.)
>
> It's really very simple: Google, Apple, Zuck and Microsoft
>don't own your computer, or the Internet, and there's no
>reason to give it to them. So I share information to help
>people help themselves. Sorry if I interrupted your shopping.
>

That was a *really* great post!