8 ms·
Google extends third party cookie deadline until late 2023
- evgen 5y agoAnd I am sure we are all in agreement that this has absolutely nothing to do with pushback on FLoC and increased attention from regulators...
- ocdtrekkie 5y agoThat's exactly what it is, and Google indicated as much already, they originally announced this was dependent on replacing their tracking methods with a new tracking method.
- SquareWheel 5y agoThe article says as much.
- ocdtrekkie 5y agoSo for two more years, Chrome will be the only major web browser to provide no reasonable expectation of privacy and security. Nobody should still be using it by 2023.
- bitmapbrother 5y agoIt's amazing how this Google troll is allowed to repeatedly post negative comments about Google without any repercussions.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bootlooped 5y agoI don't understand this assertion since Chrome already lets you block third party cookies.
- atty 5y agoI think the assertion is one of the tyranny of the default. If they are not blocked by default, then for the majority of users, the option effectively does not exist, since they will not proactively look for such a setting.
- lemoncookiechip 5y agoWe've seen this over and over in tech. The spotlight is focused on it, so they hide away and bring it back at a later date, likely with a rebranding and hope no one notices or causes a scene.
- grishka 5y agoIt's like an addict who tells themselves "I need to quit sometime" but constantly puts off actually quitting.
- dheera 5y agoGoogle Drive itself uses third-party cookies. You can't download files from Google Drive without enabling them, for some reason.
- jefftk 5y agoAre you saying you can't download files from Google Drive in the default Safari configuration?
- fumar 5y agoWas the delay caused by between Chrome and Ads teams not aligning on privacy sandbox APIs?
- dheera 5y agoI don't use Safari or any AppleWare but I disable 3rd party cookies in Chrome and I can't download files from Google Drive unless I temporarily enable it.
- jefftk 5y agoI just tried it: * On Safari it works correctly with default settings. * On Chrome with third party cookies disabled it doesn't work and takes you to https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2423534 https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2423534 I poked around in dev tools, and it looks like what's happening is in serving to Safari it gives a download link that includes authentication information, but when serving to Chrome it doesn't. Perhaps because it's expecting to get third party cookies? My guess is that they rolled out special handling for Safari when it started blocking third-party cookies by default, which will eventually make its way to all browsers? (Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)
- rantwasp 5y agoHow generous! I’m going to extend the date when I’m going to reconsider using Chrome to late 3023
- monkeybutton 5y agoLooks like FLoC isn't taking off as well as they hoped.
- nixass 5y agoOne could say it's been a FLoP
- fumar 5y ago> We believe the web community needs to come together to develop a set of open standards to fundamentally enhance privacy on the web, giving people more transparency and greater control over how their data is used. > In order to do this, we need to move at a responsible pace. This will allow sufficient time for public discussion on the right solutions, continued engagement with regulators, and for publishers and the advertising industry to migrate their services. > By ensuring that the ecosystem can support their businesses without tracking individuals across the web, we can all ensure that free access to content continues. This proves Google's consumer privacy strategy is all smoke and show. It should come to no ones surprise they choose to follow the money (ads). Apple continues to improve privacy on Safari with every major update and Google is still sitting on the sidelines. https://blog.google/products/chrome/updated-timeline-privacy-sandbox-milestones/ https://blog.google/products/chrome/updated-timeline-privacy...
- rektide 5y agonews in the past two weeks has been of eu antitrust actions over issues including this 3rd party cookies change, and uk demanding their regulators get veto power over changing 3rd party cookies. google is trying to escape a colossal regulatory hellfire that has sprung up in the last two weeks over this attempt to do the right thing, that other browsers already do. shit has just gone defcon4 & they are adding time to the doomsday clock that various national & supranational powers have just set ticking. set ticking for doing the right thing. scratch that, for having said they would be doing the right thing, hereby rescinded. mark Nottingham wrote up some of these new regulatory regimes being imposed on Google on Monday: https://www.mnot.net/blog/2021/06/21/standards-competition-governance https://www.mnot.net/blog/2021/06/21/standards-competition-g... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27578618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27578618
- tristor 5y agoRegulators aren’t concerned with Google blocking third party cookies, they’re concerned about it in conjunction with FLoC providing Google an anti-competitive moat in the adtech space where it also holds a dominant position. If Google blocked third party cookies absent FLoC, regulators wouldn’t care.
- Forge36 5y agoYou can opt into blocking third party cookies now. > Select Settings > Site Settings > Cookies and site data. > Select Block third-party cookies.
- Andrex 5y agoFor quick access, you can copy/paste this into the Omnibar: chrome://settings/cookies Just turned it on myself. Thank you, OP!
- tristor 5y agoSounds like a great reason for everyone to stop using Chrome. This is a capability that's been in Firefox and Safari for awhile now. We're getting back to a point where the dominant browser is focused on rent-extraction over user-focused design and features, and alternatives are superior in pretty much every way other than bug-compat with the dominant browser (e.g. same thing we had in the IE6 days). There's no reason anyone who's technically inclined should be using Chrome as a daily-driver at this point. Their interference in ad-blocker extensions should have been enough, this should be the nail in the coffin.
- bootlooped 5y agoChrome still lets you block third party cookies. Not with an extension or some low level tweak; it's just in the settings.
- echelon 5y agoIt shouldn't be a setting. Requiring opt-out (hidden at that!) is statistically the same as not supporting it. Most users will not know about this or be technically inclined enough to change it. Google knows this. Some analyst or PM modeled it. edit: Hello Google employees downvoting me. I'm confident nobody else on the planet wants this the way you do. You can censor me, an individual voice. But the world doesn't like or need this, and they're waking up. As are our legislators. Change your behavior and innovate in other areas that benefit society. (There are so many - nearly limitless!) The clock is ticking. They're building the antitrust cases as we speak, and this is the road you're actively choosing to go down. Not a good look, not the best step forward. I really do want the Google of 2005 to succeed; all of this has just been a misstep. Microsoft in 2021 is so much better than Microsoft of years past. Google could do the same. Don't be evil.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- koolba 5y agoIs there a use case for third party cookies outside of ad tracking? I’ve had it disabled for years and don’t recall it breaking any website I actually care to use.
- jsnell 5y agoSo when a major regulatory authority forbids Chrome from proceeding with the third party cookie deprecation plan, what should Google do? Apparently the vast majority of HN commenters think that they should ignore the regulators, and just plow ahead. For some reason I imagine that if they actually were to ignore the regulators, the feedback from exactly the same commenters would not be positive.
- ocdtrekkie 5y agoI think they should deprecate Chrome or spin it off into another company. The issue here is monopoly. Also, regulators aren't upset about them blocking third party cookies, every other browser already does that. They're upset about Google's attempts to inject new Google-controlled tracking methods that grant them a further advantage at the cost of all their competitors. The answer is simple: Block third party cookies and don't replace them with anything.
- jsnell 5y ago> Also, regulators aren't upset about them blocking third party cookies, every other browser already does that As far as I can tell, that is untrue. CMA has explicitly stated concerns with any removal of third party cookies by default from Chrome, since they believe ad tech companies are dependent on them but Google isn't. Any new mechanisms introduced for privacy preserving ad targeting are irrelevant, except insofar that they could be used to satisfy the needs of said ad tech companies. That other browsers have been allowed to remove third party cookies by default is also irrelevant: the fact is still that Chrome is not being allowed to do so. > I think they should deprecate Chrome Oh, come on.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago> CMA has explicitly stated concerns with any removal of third party cookies by default from Chrome, since they believe ad tech companies are dependent on them but Google isn't This is because Google owns Chrome, and hence, doesn't need the cookies to collect web activity. The solution, as I said, is to force them to spin off Chrome. > Oh, come on. It's actively harmful to consumers. Chrome is like asbestos, we're better off just... not using it. There are safer alternatives out there.
- 1shooner 5y agoMany (I suspect a large majority) of users simply don't care about web browser privacy. And I don't mean lack of concern due to ignorance of the scope of the issue. I mean if you describe to them what a third party cookie does, they just don't see a material harm, or risk, or disadvantage. They may prefer not to see ads at all (who wouldn't?), but in terms of surveillance marketing, it's just not something that is perceived as adversely impacting their day-to-day experience.
- fumar 5y agoConsumer awareness is shifting and fueled by Apple's privacy marketing campaigns. If Apple continues to invest here, I could see Chrome's desktop marketshare start to diminish. Safari has 50% of total mobile marketshare while only 16% in desktop. I see both platforms as low hanging fruit for Safari or Firefox. https://blog.google/products/chrome/updated-timeline-privacy-sandbox-milestones/ https://blog.google/products/chrome/updated-timeline-privacy...
- iamben 5y agoNot defending cookies - but I just don't think most of the rest of the world cares. Outside of the tech bubble that really cares, I'm not sure I know a single non-tech person that, other than 'the popup', even knows what a cookie is (let alone gives a damn). 99% of my non-tech friends/relatives are just bored of 'the box thing that comes up every time you visit a website'. No one it them and everyone just clicks the quickest button ('Accept All') to just get on with whatever they were trying to look at.
- PpEY4fu85hkQpn 5y agoJust because people don't understand the technical details doesn't mean they don't want the outcome. Like how 96% of iOS users asked apps not to track them. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-out-of-app-tracking-in-ios-14-5-analytics-find/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-o...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- toper-centage 5y agoTurns out, when you follow the GDPR and make it as easy to give as it is to remove/reject consent, people will generally reject consent to be tracker and personally identified unnecessarily.
- thrashh 5y agoWhen you get prompted with a mandatory dialog that you must answer where one of the two choices offers no clear benefits, of course no one is going to pick that one. This is a meaningless statistic. That’s why phrasing questions and choices in any kind of poll or survey is a complex subject if the goal is to ensure minimal bias.
- karottenreibe 5y agoWhat would then be a way to phrase the question with minimal bias in your opinion? What are these benefits I'm missing out on when I deactivate tracking? Also, judging by the screenshot in the article, Apps can show text to justify the tracking, so they have all chances to phrase that with bias in their favor! Still people don't want it.
- NmAmDa 5y agoIs this a chance for chrome to lose the dominant role in browsers market with the increase in privacy awareness for general population?
- danShumway 5y agoEh, we'll see if they can actually hold to that position. Every time Google delays on a change like this, it becomes a bit more obvious that both Firefox and Safari are more private browsers by default out of the box. Add to this that Firefox already has better uBlock Origin performance than Chrome. Add to this that whenever Manifest V2 is finally deprecated from Chrome their adblocking will get considerably worse. Firefox and Safari also aren't going to stand still on privacy. I expect them to continue to widen the gap over time if Google keeps delaying on this stuff; regardless of whether they're delaying because of fear of regulators or just because they don't like the idea of a web ecosystem that is less ad-friendly. ---- It is a little bit ironic to hear sentences like this coming from the Chrome PR team though: > In order to do this, we need to move at a responsible pace. This will allow sufficient time for public discussion on the right solutions, continued engagement with regulators, and for publishers and the advertising industry to migrate their services. It's funny, given that a primary complaint of Chrome from web developers has been that they constantly move at a breakneck pace with new standards and regularly push out new policies without sufficient developer discussion or thought about the possible issues their changes will introduce. See the entire web audio debacle. It's almost like Google is a lot more scared of breaking ads than they are of breaking other parts of the web. :)
- Animats 5y agoIn today's news, we have Google refusing to do something that would damage their ad business, and we have Apple refusing to do something that would damage their app store business.
- xnx 5y agoWe know: * FLoC is less useful than third-party cookies for tracking visitors. * Google won't stop supporting third-party cookies until a replacement (like FloC) is available Yet, in these threads I see both statements: * Google is pushing FLoC to help its ad business. * Google won't kill 3rd-party cookies because it would hurt their ad business.