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?

Perhaps not surprisingly -- given the amount of revenue Google derives from online advertising -- the Chrome browser has never blocked cookies by default. By contrast, Apple Safari, first introduced in 2003, has always blocked all third-party cookies by default. Mozilla, meanwhile, plans to follow suit this year with its Firefox browser, despite strong protests from the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB). Internet Explorer 10 also ships with a Do Not Track (DNT) setting activated by default, indicating that users don't want to be tracked. Advertising networks, however, don't have to abide by that request.

Would Google's move benefit consumers? So far, the company has released scant details publicly, making any analysis purely speculative, said Stanford University professor Jonathan Mayer, who studies online advertising and privacy, and who until recently was working on the W3C's DNT standard. But one question Google will no doubt face is this: "From the consumer privacy perspective, how is AdID an improvement?" said Mayer via email. "Consumers can -- and increasingly will -- see Safari and Firefox defaults outright block third-party cookies." Accordingly, might Google's AdID push actually drive privacy-conscious consumers to adopt other browsers?

Furthermore, how exactly does AdID differ from DNT, which advertisers -- including trade groups to which Google belongs -- have actively resisted? "Google still doesn't support Do Not Track, despite participating in an industry announcement a year and a half ago," said Meyer. "Instead of starting from scratch, why doesn't Google support the consumer control technology that's already in every major Web browser? Twitter and Pinterest already do, in fact."

We also can expect Google's claims of anonymity for consumers via AdID to face strong scrutiny, especially given the vast quantities of data the company already can and does collect from people's searches and YouTube viewing habits, as well as through its Admob mobile advertising and DoubleClick online advertising divisions.

"Google needs to demonstrate this isn't merely a PR ploy designed to give increasingly privacy concerned users reassurance that they have nothing to fear," said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), via email. "The reality is Google is addicted to gathering our data -- that's the source of its revenues. The AdID will likely help them expand their surveillance of online users, especially as it focuses on monetizing our mobile phone and location activities."

Also expect any formal AdID proposals from Google to have to pass muster with the Federal Trade Commission. That's thanks to Google's 2011 privacy settlement with the agency, stemming from privacy violations associated with the 2010 launch of the now-defunct Buzz social network, which lead to the search giant agreeing to submit to regular reviews of its privacy policies. "The FTC will need to review AdID to determine whether it triggers a violation of Google's 20-year privacy consent decree," Chester said.

Interestingly, Google already has violated that settlement once, and triggered a record-setting $22.5 million FTC fine, after Stanford's Mayer discovered that the company was bypassing Safari privacy settings and placing tracking cookies directly on the computers of Safari users.

Previous
2 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, January 2015
To find and fix exploits aimed directly at your business, stop waiting for alerts and become a proactive hunter.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-7402
Published: 2014-12-17
Multiple unspecified vulnerabilities in request.c in c-icap 0.2.x allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via a crafted ICAP request.

CVE-2014-5437
Published: 2014-12-17
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in ARRIS Touchstone TG862G/CT Telephony Gateway with firmware 7.6.59S.CT and earlier allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) enable remote management via a request to remote_management.php,...

CVE-2014-5438
Published: 2014-12-17
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in ARRIS Touchstone TG862G/CT Telephony Gateway with firmware 7.6.59S.CT and earlier allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the computer_name parameter to connected_devices_computers_edit.php.

CVE-2014-7170
Published: 2014-12-17
Race condition in Puppet Server 0.2.0 allows local users to obtain sensitive information by accessing it in between package installation or upgrade and the start of the service.

CVE-2014-7285
Published: 2014-12-17
The management console on the Symantec Web Gateway (SWG) appliance before 5.2.2 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary OS commands by injecting command strings into unspecified PHP scripts.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Join us Wednesday, Dec. 17 at 1 p.m. Eastern Time to hear what employers are really looking for in a chief information security officer -- it may not be what you think.