Google Chrome pushes browser history-based ad targeting
theregister.com
theregister.com
Why am I even using this browser anymore?
EDIT: Note this section about privacy goals, from the draft proposal by two Googlers: “Users should be able to understand the API, recognize what is being communicated about them, and have clear controls. This is largely a UX responsibility but it does require that the API be designed in a way such that the UX is feasible.” [1]
I guess it’s just a little oopsie that made the people responsible for the UX present it to the user through misleading copy.
I am gonna make a generalization but HN readers is not the demographic pushing for Firefox usage and when they do it's usually for the wrong reason: "performance".
Yeah, stop putting up with all these anti-features! Firefox, Brave etc are not perfect but at least they're not THAT. No matter how many hoops you jump through, still using Chrome means it is being endorsed. Wish more people would reconsider it like you and jump ship!
Wise Google have decided to remove the second point by replacing it with terrible Lens.
The differences aren't really important any more. Both have converged on similar UIs, both have important privacy extensions, both have password managers and payment storage. My only caveat for suggesting Firefox is that it's a possible frying pan -> fire situation, since they push their own revenue-building tat and get paid by Google.
For some weird reason somes sites just dont open on Firefox on my work computer when I connect to the company VPN on it. Safari and Chrome can open all sites just fine.
I really want to use Firefox especially for the container feature but just cannot figure out why somes sites dont work when I on the vpn.
It could be that the proxy is set up as a non-system proxy too, so you could try checking Chrome's configured proxy and setting it in settings.
Its clear that Google is milking every single one of its users using their browser, since they have access to your computers.
Probably this is the “vector” they use to gather the most info about users, apart from Android maybe.
There's Chromium and there's Ungoogled Chromium[1]. If you're looking for (some) independence from Google, you want the latter. Or just avoid it altogether and use other browsers.
I wouldn't recommend Blink-based browsers (Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, etc.) You're still indirectly giving Google power over the web by using their engine.
[1] https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium
For example, the Chromium packages provided by the vast majority of Linux distros disable security features like CFI (check your favorite distro's x86_64 Chromium package build log and look for the "is_cfi" argument). I think Arch is the only exception.
ungoogled-chromium has similar problems https://qua3k.github.io/ungoogled/
If you are going to use a Blink-based browser, I would recommend just using the official Google release, or maybe Edge or Brave if you trust the organizations behind them. Otherwise, just switch to Firefox. It has its own problems, like being overall less hardened than Chromium, but it's far less user-hostile. And regarding security, for browsing untrusted sites, I think you should always virtualize the browser since they're all routinely exploited anyway.
Why would they even do that?
"If you go to chrome://settings/adPrivacy you can turn off the spyware that got inserted into the latest version of Chrome."
And I found PaulG's tweet from this earlier Hacker News discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37392517
Might I suggest Vivaldi? It's nice, lots of built in features that you probably are running extensions for currently.
Can you imagine signing into your bank with a closed source browser.
But they won't, because they have a reputation to loose. So does Vivaldi.
This is misleading, Vivaldi source code may not be released under an OSI License [1] but it is publicly accessible for audit at [2].
Whilst you wont be able to create OSS derivatives from it, it's definitely not "secret" and fear mongering need not apply to a publicly auditable code-base.
[1] https://help.vivaldi.com/desktop/privacy/is-vivaldi-open-sou...
In the long run I want a browser that has a solid community or base behind it, with a mostly-good record (no point chasing perfection here) of privacy and security. The Mozilla Foundation has done a good but not stellar job (remember 1.1.1.1?). I also don't want to change browsers because someday Vivaldi - hypothetically - gets acquired by Evil Corp, or has some vulnerability that remains unpatched. I just want to get my work done.
Are you really suggesting there isn't a huge difference between an ad and sharing your browsing history with advertisers?
I see this happen all the time, specially in politics or politics-adjacent topics. Just because no option is perfect, they become equal in people's mind. Two things can be both imperfect, and one be way worse than the other.
Google Chrome is on a whole different league when it comes to abusing your privacy. Mozilla Firefox ain't perfect, but it's way better.
All the same Chrome extensions and other functionality work.
But I'd wager someone on here could find a problem with them too :(
The real solution is switching to Firefox.
> You can block topics that you don’t want to be shared with sites. Chrome also auto-deletes your topics that are older than four weeks.
Wow, they really went all out here in regards to actively user hostile patterns!
You can save the full content for indexing with full text search, and you can even export archives as tarballs by zipping up the directory. Many people find this a useful way to "mine" their own browser history to create a curated search engine aligned with your interests. Or simply to save the pages they browse for review offline--either to save bandwidth, or just because they're actually "offline"--at a remote site, or on an airplane.
Everything is saved in a fully interactive way. Personally tho, I find search the most useful feature. Also, we're open source so if you want to get involved, please do so!
Does your one have archiving and search??
Not sure of which site issue you're talking about.
If you look at the market share progression of the old opera and mozilla vs. internet explorer, and you compare it to the stellar rise of Chrome when it came out, it's really obvious that Chrome's success is due mostly to advertising.
Also it has a big incredible redesign every 2 weeks, as far as I can tell from HN, while Chrome's UI is mostly boring and stable.
For instance here they announce it for UK, France, Germany (in 2022) and say it was available in the US/Canada since 2018: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/fi...
Firefox is a great browser, a sensible choice without any flaws that exists RIGHT NOW, that does not add a weekly "feature" that encroaches the user's interests.
Check it out:
Financials are another matter, and if they are really so problematic then what you should do is either propose a better alternative, or even work on it yourself, given that it is open source what we're talking about.
I simply have no idea how you can possibly draw any other conclusion. It's not "FUD" either. If you can refute the article I posted, I will stop posting it and never speak of the matter again. Until then, I will criticize Mozilla for not spending money developing Firefox. Because I care about Firefox and want to see it kill Chrome, not languish in 5th place dying a slow death with zero leverage to actually stop things like WEI from being inflicted upon us.
You're actively working against what you say you care about if you post a negative reply to a comment suggesting Firefox as alternative to Chrome. In a thread about Chrome's latest user-hostile feature of the week.
Anyway, you brought attention to the issue that you care about going on at Mozilla. Let's hope that there is a way to improving that, simultaneously to promoting Firefox as a perfectly-good alternative to Chrome - today.
Maybe it will generate enough pressure to set them straight. Probably not.
I mean some of the people implementing and designing this shit must be right here. Is it really just the money?
I seriously doubt the people in this thread will agree with any of that, but I thought I’d answer the question. Of course, the money helps too - Google just recently laid off thousands of workers in an attempt to scare the rest into compliance
Some perspective please.
That would require levels of cognitive dissonance rarely seen outside fraudulent politicians. But that's phrasing it sarcastically, something best avoided in conversations. Bluntly put: indeed, I don't believe you. You cannot work for Google/Alphabet, where 80% of revenue ($183 billion in 2020!) comes from ads, and believe you're doing privacy a favor.
All of this is kinda silly, in the end: display ads are negligible when compared to their INSANE search ads revenue, and something tells me they’re not long for this world
Providing an open API for advertisers that doesn't require endless digital stalking is the only way Google will ever be able to enforce stricter anti tracking features. Their announcement that they were working on ending third party cookie tracking was met with threats of lawsuits and antitrust.
A locally classified list of topics that can be spoofed by the user agent is an excellent privacy measure. Nobody wants ads, but I'd rather have Chrome enable site isolation than the current status quo.
Honestly, I don't see the problem here. Your browsing history isn't submitted to Google according to the spec. There are aboit 8 bits of entropy for fingerprinting, but who cares when WebGPU and the canvas APIs provide ten times that already.
The privacy invasion argument seems to be "but it's based on my browsing history" which is exactly how all major advertisers have been doing it for the last ten years.
If this gets cancelled, Google isn't going to implement any anti tracking features in Chrome. They legally can't because of advertisers as scummy as them. They can choose between dropping their main source of income (lol), leaving Microsoft in charge of Chromium and killing Chrome (lol), do nothing against the current atate of the web amd tracking, or work with advertisers in a way that doesn't get them sued to hell over antitrust.
2. The suggestion that Google has only a limited choice between maintaining its main source of income or facing antitrust lawsuits is an oversimplification. Google, as one of the most influential tech companies, has the power and resources to innovate and find alternative models that respect user privacy while also providing value to their advertisers.
3. The idea that an API to track browsing history is a "privacy measure" because it can be "spoofed" by the user is flawed because it assumes all users have the technical knowledge and time to do so. This should not be a user's responsibility; privacy should be a default setting, not an option for the tech-savvy.
4. Lastly, just because the browsing history isn't directly submitted to Google does not mean it cannot be misused. Even if Google uses this data responsibly, the potential for abuse still exists with third parties
2. That's what they're doing. That's what this is.
3. It's not a feature, it's an advantage for browsers like Firefox and Brave that happen to be made possible. Google sure won't advertise with it.
4. What data? Ad companies know through tracking that you've visit cars.com three times during lunch every work day except on your day off on Friday, who cares if they now get an API that says "I like cars".
2. Trading privacy for utility. A truly innovative solution would respect privacy from the ground up, not pretending to retrofit privacy into an advertising model.
3. The nuance here is about "default" privacy. Even if the feature provides some privacy, it shouldn't require user intervention or tech prowess. Privacy should be a given, not a bonus.
4. The concern isn't just about "liking cars" but the ability to infer personal and sensitive information from gathered data. This may lead to the misuse of data by third parties, reinforcing the need for stringent privacy safeguards.
Could even have a "suggest automatically" button.
I hope so. I can at least understand that. People have principles but they also have prices.
It would be a completely different matter if they actually believed what they're doing is moral though.
They all promote to manager position when there's opportunity, because it pays more.
For macOS my choice of using the faster and more energy efficient Safari is fairly easy. Windows also has a lot of good options, I prefer Vivaldi as a Chrome alternative since it sports a Blink engine, has a focus on privacy and is actively developed that sees frequent features and improvements in each release [1].
We'll keep the money as per T&C (we're looking forward to the firstborn too!). As a token of good will, here's an ankle bracelet.
Here is a link to his podcast where he explains the specification: https://twit.tv/shows/security-now/episodes/935?autostart=fa...
Although if you believe that being online you should be 100% anonymous and share 0% of personal data then of course Topics is not good (but then no other ad targeting solution will be either).
There's a pop up that will be clicked through and soon forgotten and then there will still be ads. The ads might be slightly less targetted as they may now be showing for general browsing categories rather than individual websites visited but its not a big change.
They will only stop this bullshit once they go bankrupt - the Google we all loved died a long time, only through branding do they still appear nice.
What happened Google? You were this promising young boy 25 years ago. Now you're the filthy pervert on the corner.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/no-privacy-sandbox...
Yeah, these kinds of "features" are horribly invasive and anti-consumer, but so, so, so many people just could not give less of a shit as long as they can hit up Facebook or YouTube or whatever work requires them to visit.
It's not like the early 00s when Firefox rose to dominance because IE sucked so badly in comparison.
Chrome is not only the best and "most-compliant" web browser (isn't it awesome to be compliant with standards you created?), but it is also what most of the web tests against by default and, consequently, works the best with. Not that this even matters, really; most web traffic is shifting to the apps, which have free-reign to track everything you do.
Theoretically, app privacy scorecards should dampen this, but it's all too easy to tap "OK" to the "can I use your contacts, your mic, your camera and every sensor and contact I can get away with?"
I was not expecting to become a curmudgeon at 35, but between this, WEI, Cloudflare becoming the Internet's global firewall, and the Great Enshittification of Reddit, Twitter, and others, all of this bums me out. Anyone got a positive counterpoint?
Though I suppose cookies will always be a fallback option if the website detects that the browser doesn't support the Topics API...
Cookies are hard because other browsers do isolation based on top-level domains. Fingerprinting is the only way to track non-Chrome browsers.
Google wants to do cookie isolation as well, but ad companies threatened to sue them over it, so they can't for now, not until there's a viable alternative.
Adsense needs to respect that header, is all. I'd ditch ad-block if that happened.
Provided ads are alongside my content and don't replace it's space and time.
I'd use that.
EDIT: apparently, the basic idea is there; but also cookies will now only come from the website being viewed, not tracking you across the whole Web.
Some needs to sue Meta for this too, “presence” across all their apps behaves the same. And resets on every major update.
Currently I'm guessing https://tauri.app/ would be the easiest way to get away from electron.
Web, Web widgets (available on most OS for 30 years), or native.
Electron is for lazy developers that cannot master Web widgets available for 30 years on mainstream OSes.
Or step out of their comfort zone into pure native applications, or background services making use of default browser for UI.
If people like myself have been able to master multiple native since decades, and also use such approaches during the dotcom boom, it is hardly an excuse for younger devs lacking such skills, other than laziness.
And yes, even MS, VSCode isn't as bad, as it relies on several external processes, renders into WebGL, and has the excuse they use it to sell services into Azure and Github, back at X-Windows/one UNIX development server.
In fact, they are a way to turn the Web into ChromeOS, mostly pushed by Google and Microsoft, as evolution from WinJS in Windows 8, and ChromeOS API.
That said, even though I "know better" I actively choose to use Safari as a daily driver to avoid things like this. I'm a lot less worried about Apple's intentions, especially since Safari is backed up by all the profits they rake in from iPhone sales.
Writing good luck wishe from Safari to all you all chrome users out there! :-P
I did read an explanation that it does some complex operations, but you have to wonder if it is deliberately made complex to make people avoid deleting their history, as it takes so long.
Would like to head for Firefox, if they would only add some usability features I'm so used to (like tab groups). So Brave it will be, i guess...
Still the sad thing is, that both Brave (technically) and Firefox (financially) are heavily dependent on Google.