Risk
9/19/2013
04:47 PM
50%
50%

Google's Plan To Kill Cookies

Google proposes anonymous identifier for advertising, or AdID, to replace cookies used by third-party marketers. Google would benefit -- but would consumers?

Google Nexus 7, Chromecast: Visual Tour
Google Nexus 7, Chromecast: Visual Tour
(click image for larger view)
Google is floating a plan to cease tracking Internet users with cookies, which are bits of code stored in browsers that allow third-party advertising and marketing firms to track consumers' browsing habits.

Instead, Google is proposing a new system that would use an anonymous identifier for advertising -- or AdID -- to collect information on users, USA Today first reported. Advertisers and advertising networks that agreed to abide by Google's code of conduct -- which has yet to be detailed -- would then be given access to AdID. Theoretically, that code of conduct would enshrine some basic privacy protections for consumers, including the ability to opt out, or to assign different AdID policies to different sites, but any such details have yet to be released.

Asked to comment on the report, a Google spokeswoman emailed the following statement: "We believe that technological enhancements can improve users' security while ensuring the web remains economically viable. We and others have a number of concepts in this area, but they're all at very early stages."

[ Here's how Google is personalizing its answers to your questions: Google Search: 5 New Ways To Get More Personal. ]

Google reportedly plans to meet with consumer groups, government agencies, industry groups and anyone else with a stake in the $120 billion online-advertising industry, which Google dominates. In addition, according to Net Market Share, Google's Chrome browser also enjoys a 16% share of the browser market. Although less than IE (58%) and Firefox (19%), that still gives Google added leverage.

Advertisers, however, have responded in a lukewarm manner to Google's suggestion, because it would largely consolidate advertising power in the hands of Google, as well as Apple, which last year introduced a unique Apple Advertising Identifier for all iOS devices, together with prohibitions on developers or marketers using a device UDID to directly track users. "There could be concern in the industry about a system that shifts more of the benefits and control to operators like Google or Apple," eMarketer's Clark Fredricksen, who tracks the digital ad industry, told USA Today.

Previous
1 of 2
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
rradina
50%
50%
rradina,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/23/2013 | 1:21:09 PM
re: Google's Plan To Kill Cookies
I agree that share looks low. However I recently read that one statistic group recently changed its methods. Among other things, they stopped counting page hits rendered in the background but never viewed (how they know that...I have no idea). They claim hits that are never viewed skew the numbers. I believe the article claimed Chrome leverages background page rendering more than other browsers and thus took the biggest negative hit.
WKash
50%
50%
WKash,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/20/2013 | 9:19:46 PM
re: Google's Plan To Kill Cookies
While this seems like a potentially better way to deal with privacy issues, I wonder whether the advertising world will go along with letting Google create a new standard that inevitably will give Google an advantage in tracking online behavior.
Somedude8
50%
50%
Somedude8,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/20/2013 | 4:22:03 PM
re: Google's Plan To Kill Cookies
If one wants to advertise on the web, one would have to play by the rules of a single corporation? Yeah...
Lorna Garey
50%
50%
Lorna Garey,
User Rank: Ninja
9/20/2013 | 2:02:39 PM
re: Google's Plan To Kill Cookies
Nice analysis - killing cookies only makes them 'not evil' if they don't replace with something equally snoopy. I'm somewhat surprised Chrome is only at 16% - doesn't seem like a half-baked idea like this is going to help that.
David F. Carr
50%
50%
David F. Carr,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/20/2013 | 1:55:15 PM
re: Google's Plan To Kill Cookies
I know they haven't released details, but any clue how this AdID code would be tracked, if not with a cookie? Would browsers have to build in support specific to tracking this other type of code?
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading December Tech Digest
Experts weigh in on the pros and cons of end-user security training.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-2037
Published: 2014-11-26
Openswan 2.6.40 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (NULL pointer dereference and IKE daemon restart) via IKEv2 packets that lack expected payloads. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE 2013-6466.

CVE-2014-6609
Published: 2014-11-26
The res_pjsip_pubsub module in Asterisk Open Source 12.x before 12.5.1 allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (crash) via crafted headers in a SIP SUBSCRIBE request for an event package.

CVE-2014-6610
Published: 2014-11-26
Asterisk Open Source 11.x before 11.12.1 and 12.x before 12.5.1 and Certified Asterisk 11.6 before 11.6-cert6, when using the res_fax_spandsp module, allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (crash) via an out of call message, which is not properly handled in the ReceiveFax dia...

CVE-2014-7141
Published: 2014-11-26
The pinger in Squid 3.x before 3.4.8 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information or cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read and crash) via a crafted type in an (1) ICMP or (2) ICMP6 packet.

CVE-2014-7142
Published: 2014-11-26
The pinger in Squid 3.x before 3.4.8 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information or cause a denial of service (crash) via a crafted (1) ICMP or (2) ICMP6 packet size.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Now that the holiday season is about to begin both online and in stores, will this be yet another season of nonstop gifting to cybercriminals?