Google wants to phase out support for third-party cookies in Chrome within two years

Google wants to phase out support for third-party cookies in Chrome within two years
January 14, 2020
https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/14/g...ird-party-cookies-in-chrome-within-two-years/

Google: Building a more private web: A path towards making third party cookies obsolete

 

On one hand this is interesting and good. On the other hand blocking tracking by third-party companies favors big players and tracking inside theirs big services and platforms such as Facebook, search engines, Youtube, Gmail, Twitter, Spotify.

 

I don't really get what's so special about this since for years we have been able to block third party cookies via browser settings. What I would like to hear from Google is how they are going to tackle annoying ads and tracking.

 

What Google’s Latest Data Privacy Announcement Actually Means
January 16, 2020
https://slate.com/technology/2020/01/google-chrome-cookies-phase-out.html

 

It'definitely a big deal for this crazy 2y schedule. Blocking 3rd-party cookie is currently just an option which only small percentage of people apply and thus cross-site tracking is working. If ad-tech companies became serious about bypassing blocker and browser vendors didn't make effort to avoid it, we could not win. I'll keep an eye on what approaches ad-tech companies will adopt.

 

As 142395 said very small number of people disabled third-party cookies. It is worth to note I have seen some breakage after disabling third-party cookies on some login-required websites.

 

Marketers and Ad Agencies Ask Google Not to Kill Cookies Too Soon
Trade groups worry that Google’s plan will choke digital advertising
January 16, 2020
https://www.wsj.com/articles/market...ogle-not-to-kill-cookies-too-soon-11579206028

Statement from the 4A’s and ANA responding to Google’s announcement regarding third-party cookies

 

All your tracks are belong to us!

 

Of the 9 services I use that are needing login, only 1 needs me to enable 3rd party cookie.
Luckily, Firefox let's me make exception for sites needing 3rd party cookies, so
that I don't never need to do disable-enable-disable 3rd party cookie dance ever again.

EDIT: And I would like to point out, it's not actually the login page in that one service
needing the 3rd party cookie, but the known third party (in my case bank) that need that cookie so that I can do my business. So in that case it's okay.
And that's the only case it's okay to use 3rd party cookie.

Site needing 3rd party cookie for actual login page is either:
A) incompetent
B) malicious

Ordinary session cookies are for login stuff

 

Of course. They want to bring their fingerprinting techniques to perfection first.

 

Yes, that's true I guess. I have noticed that it only breaks stuff related to "Login with Facebook", so if you're trying to login via third parties. In Vivaldi and other browsers you can make an exception, but it's not recommended if you do not want to be tracked by Facebook and others. But perhaps it's not even a bad idea to kill third party cookies, but what will come in place, and will we be able to disable it, that's the question.

 

I don't think fingerprinting may be as accurate as 3rd-party cookies. On the one hand it is good think getting rid of these 3rd-party cookies (but also costly). One the other hand IMO it reflects sad truth that Web is so centralized that big tech companies may give up cross-website tracking and rely on information inside their platforms.

 

Yup, at least currently prevalent framework such as Fingerprint2 are not reliable. Also note Google is trying to phase out fingerprinting too.

 

Google wants to kill third-party cookies. Here's why that could be messy

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science...arty-cookies-privacy-and-competition/11882718

 

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but apparently the next move of ad-companies is going to be first-party tracking, and uBlock and others can't block it.

https://medium.com/nextdns/cname-cl...disguise-of-third-party-trackers-195205dc522a

 

Yeah, this is typical. Google are trying the old smoke and mirrors routine. I must be a cynic lol.

 

Unless you also use dns-based adblockers

 

Next move? 1p tracker and analytics (both as CNAME and as real 1p) have long been playing in the field and uBO has long been blocking them even w/out the latest change of the DNS API. IDK how you come to believe they can't be blocked, but if you don't know how ad-blocking works better not to speak too much. Ofc discussed in uBO thread and in another thread, and the author of the article participated in discussion here too that I'm watching.

Or use Geoffrey's list tho not as comprehensive, except for sucky iOS/Mac contents blocker. But I'd note real (non-CNAME) 1p analytics are still around there (many of them are missed by popular filters) and ad companies utilize data sharing agreement among their customer, tho I tend to believe this is more about whole statistics and not individual's behavior.

 

They are apparently doing this over the next 2 years, whatever that means.

Google have many ways to track web users that don't need cookies.
The majority of the worlds';
OS in use is Android,
browser in use is Chrome,
search engine in use is Google,
email in use is web-based (privacy invading) gmail,
app analytics is to google,
preferred DNS is either google or part google owned,
web and app users stay logged in to google domains and services.

All these allow direct insight into the users browsing habits.
Now with annoyances like hyperlink auditing, why do google need tracking cookies anymore ?
They don't but competitors do.

When people discuss if google should be broken up, every time I say only 1 bit needs to be cut away to fix google.
The advert department.
As long as an advert platform is in charge of how you browse, access info or talk to your friends and family, all the other products it has will be directly there to facilitate more marketing.

It is as clear a conflict of interest as the nose on my face (big nose).

 

Well, you can read about it in the article, he claims that ad-blockers like ABP, Ghostery and uBlock can't block this. But apparently you can block this via NextDNS.

Any examples of this, I'm guessing you're talking about standalone ad-blockers that don't use any extensions? And apparently it can also be blocked by DNS resolvers.

 

https://adguard.com/en/blog/disguised-trackers.html

 

In no place in the article said he CAN'T block. He just reported they missed some tracker at one point in past which is not at all special to CNAME tracker, they're always missing thousands of tracker if you used them in default setting. And he even mention uBO on Firefox utilizes DNS API for the cloaking so uBO on Fx is surely a DNS-based blocker in part. No need at all for Next DNS. Read first uBO thread and https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/new-unblockable-web-trackers-based-on-dns-aliasing.423710/

 

OK then I misunderstood. So at that moment of time, uBlock and others didn't block it, but it can block this stuff. I just wondered if uBlock would always need to play catch up when it came to first party tracking.

 

Probably actually a bad thing.

As long as its technically possible, companies will track your movements. Its even a problem plaguing private sites.

So if google is phasing out 3rd party cookies, then that to me only means one thing, there is a new toy to be used for tracking, and I would rather they use a toy I know about and can control, rather than something new that I have no knowledge about.

e.g. tracking via redirects is way worse than tracking via cookies, since redirects mess up back/forward navigation and also slow down web browsing performance.

Redirects always seems to be favoured now days, note as well how referral sites never give you a discount code, but instead want you to click on tracking links to pass on the referral.

Also things like billing portals utilise 3rd party cookies, so it will be interesting how that gets handled in future.

 

That's the exactly Google has been warning (blocking cookie can lead more nasty tech) and the new tech that replace cookies are at least currently on open discussion. And tracking by redirect works completely differently from cookie, it can never be alternative of it.