After spending more than a decade in construction huge profits targeted advertising excluded, Google announced on Wednesday that it plans to remove any kind of individual tracking and targeting once the cookie becomes out of the picture.
In many ways, this announcement is just Google’s way of doubling its long-standing privacy claims, starting with the company. initial bet for 2020 to remove third-party cookies in Chrome by 2022. Privacy protection among us may agree that the killing of these types ubiquitous trackers and targets is a net benefit, but it ‘s not time to start welcoming the privacy of a company built on our data – as some were inclined to do after Wednesday’ s announcement.
As the date for killing cookies is creeping closer, we’ve seen a few key names in data brokerage and adtech biz – shady third-party cookie-earners – are trying to come up with something likeuniversal identifier“, Which can serve as a replacement after Google pulls the plug. In some cases, these new ID cards rely on people email login which are hashed and collected collectively from multiple sites on the web. In other cases, companies plan to process the remnants of a person’s identifiable data with other data that can be downloaded from sources other than browsers, such as connected TV or mobile phones. There is tons of others schemes that these companies invent against the background of the countdown of cookies, and obviously Google has none of that.
“We continue to receive questions about whether Google will join others in the advertising industry who plan to replace third-party cookies with alternative user-level identifiers,” said David Temkin, who leads Google’s Privacy and Product Management team. trust ads, ”he wrote in a blog post posted on Wednesday.
In response, Temkin noted that Google does not believe that “these solutions will meet consumers’ growing expectations for privacy, nor will they oppose rapidly evolving regulatory restrictions.” Based on this, these types of products “are not a sustainable long-term investment,” he added, noting that Google has no plans to build “alternative tracking identifiers” once the cookie is revoked.
What Google right however, the build plan is its own set of privacy tools for ad targeting, such as its Federal cohort trainingor FLoC for short. Just to speed people up: While cookies (and some of these planned universal identifiers) track people by their individual browsing behavior as they jump from site to site, under FLoC a person’s browser will take all the data generated by that browsing and basically place put it in a large container with data from people with similar surfing behavior – “herd”, if you will. Instead of being able to target ads to people based on individual bits of human-generated data, Google will allow advertisers to target these giant pots of aggregated data.
We wrote down our full thoughts on FLoC beforeThe short version is that, like the majority from Google’s privacy push we’ve seen so far, the FLoC proposal isn’t as user-friendly as you might think. On the one hand, others have already indicated that this proposal is not mandatory stop yourself people are not tracked online, it just ensures that Google is the only one that does. This is one of the reasons that the upcoming cookiepocolypse has already prepared control by the competition authorities in the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, some American trade groups have already done so loudly voiced their suspicions that what Google is doing here is less about privacy and more about tightening it obscene grip on the economics of digital advertising.
Which brings us back to that Google blog post earlier this week – the post that was literally called “outlining a course for greater privacy protection” while ignoring all the obvious issues that others have pointed out with FLoC: how is the tracking still tracking, even if this happens collectively. What does Google’s claim that FLoC-based targeting is “95% as effective” as cookie-based targeting look like? two-story mathematics. How will this trick give Google exclusive access up to a ton of user data that the company already has largely monopolized. If Google really wants to displace the national user privacy conversation, then it needs to start by clarifying what they think “privacy” means.