Google Chrome pushes ahead with targeted ads based on your browser history

wolf@lemmy.zip to Technology@lemmy.world – 1339 points – Google Chrome pushes browser history-based ad targeting
theregister.com

Google enables advertisers a look into your browsing history...

352

You are viewing a single comment
View all comments

It's disgusting. Users browser history is private, just like their search history. Fuck Google.

Exactly. If Google wants to collect user data and use it for their products, they should be paying users. You can't build and sell cars without paying for the nuts and bolts, yet Google has been taking their materials for free.

Not for free, for a browser. This doesn't make it any less evil.

That's not the deal though. It's not an exchange of data for the use of the product, like you would exchange money for a product or service. The product is offered free of charge, and alongside that they collect whatever they can get away with. There's no consideration, there's no proportionality, it doesn't meet the basic tenets of contract law.

Data companies thrive in this hazy grey zone where regulations haven't been made. However, when you compare what they do to anything else, it's clearly unreasonable. If I invite you into my home, that doesn't mean I give you permission to take the strawberries from my garden. If you invite me into your home, that doesn't mean you get permission to go through my wallet and take photos of everything inside.

It's getting worse, look at Microsoft now. You pay them for the software and they still take your data.

Data needs to be regulated, such that users are fairly compensated and more properly in control of it. Either that, or it must be completely open - Google can collect the data, but their raw database must be freely available to everyone. Lobbying has proven effective for Google et al, however there is some small hope because law makers themselves are also the victims - everyone is. They just need to realise the true value of what's being taken from them.

No disagreement here. It's just unfortunate that the users happily agree to everything you've pointed out. Because their browser is apparently just so nice, and a typical user has no ability to recognize value in their data so it feels free to them.

The problem is that the users truly don’t understand how terrifying the data is.

End, it seems impossible to educate them on it .

Nobody wants to believe that they can be manipulated as easily as they actually can be, especially with a bunch of inside information that you don’t think is relevant.

Everyone wants to believe that they are freethinkers and make decisions themselves without “Google bias” and subtle manipulation.

I honestly have no idea how to fight that and it terrifies me

I don't necessarily disagree, but your analogy of inviting someone into your home is flawed. You did agree to them collecting some anonymous data just by using it, and the browser history usage is opt-in.

Their products are not free, they just don't cost money. If you don't agree with that policy, don't use their products. I would also add that this is their business model for most of their products (which are undeniably extremely popular, because they're good).

Maps, Search, Chrome, YouTube, etc are all really good products that you pay for by letting them use some of your data, but not the more sensitive parts, in my opinion.

I disagree that their "raw database" should be public. That seems like a terrible idea. I would much rather share my clicks and geolocation than pay for the service (I don't, but I would prefer that model).

I do however agree that data needs to be regulated, and that users solely own all their own data.

No amount of regulation would help if the users themselves don't value their data. As far as they are concerned, these products are free. They might be wrong, but that's irrelevant here, the relevant part is that to them their data is worthless so they don't care. We need more education on this, not regulation. Or rather we need both.

Yes, and people are free to choose and think what they want. Everyone knows there can be shady things in ToS, they just don't care, and that's honestly fine.

A more serious issue, in my opinion, is sensitive personal data like government identification, medical and banking records, and of course date of birth, address, etc. that can be used to identify you and in worse cases, steal your identity.

Such data is not being handled well enough, for the vast majority of cases. I'm lucky to live in a country/region that does it well (better than most), with laws protecting individuals.

But honestly idgaf if ad trackers can see on my digital footprint that I just bought a bicycle. I also enjoy services like Google Maps very much, because it works scarily well, and I can choose when I want to be tracked or not.

Problem is, Chrome abused a notion that was set up by mozilla - the idea of software without strings, open source, freely available to all. That was the environment that Chrome first set foot in, and they absolutely took advantage of that preconception, same as fb.

People forget that before google started getting cunty 'if you don't pay for the product you are the product' really wasn't a thing on the 'net.

They conceived of and created predatory practises most users literally had no framework to conceive of - the onus is on them for that shit.

Oh yeah no problem, just be alive in 2023 and don't use any Google products. Totally an easy choice! /s

Yes, it very much is.

It actually really, really isn't. Just try blocking Google services using an ad blocker and see how many websites don't work. How Google track who you bank with, where you have social media accounts and basically everything they can with Captcha. If you don't connect to google.com, gstatic.com and maybe fonts.google.com then so much stuff online simply does not work.

I think you mean "tenets of contract law", rather than tenants. Not trying to be "that" guy, I had to look it up myself.

It seems to me that we need some software that intercepts the data being sent to Google, replaces all proper nouns with "Sundar Pichai," all numbers with a 10 followed by 100 zeroes, and randomizes everything else before sending. The data they receive would look like it was smuggled out of a Being John Malkovich parallel universe.

Or we could just use Firefox. Or Lynx.

It's opt-in and they're very clear about that.

This is completely incorrect. It is opt-out.

It was turned on for me by default when I opened Chrome (it had updated in the background). I had to go to settings to turn it back off.

I live in Europe, and it's most definitely opt-in.

For now

No.. Even if that was true, what you're saying is "you're right, but you might not be in a month, sooo Google bad".

It won't be opt-out because first of all, that's against the law. And second you're literally opting in by accepting their terms...