Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Risk

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?
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 5/28/2020
Stay-at-Home Orders Coincide With Massive DNS Surge
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/27/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Can you smell me now?
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-11844
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
There is an Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in Micro Focus Service Management Automation (SMA) product affecting version 2018.05 to 2020.02. The vulnerability could be exploited to provide unauthorized access to the Container Deployment Foundation.
CVE-2020-6937
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
A Denial of Service vulnerability in MuleSoft Mule CE/EE 3.8.x, 3.9.x, and 4.x released before April 7, 2020, could allow remote attackers to submit data which can lead to resource exhaustion.
CVE-2020-7648
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker before 4.72.2 are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read. It allows arbitrary file reads for users who have access to Snyk's internal network by appending the URL with a fragment identifier and a whitelisted path e.g. `#package.json`
CVE-2020-7650
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker after 4.72.0 including and before 4.73.1 are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read. It allows arbitrary file reads to users with access to Snyk's internal network of any files ending in the following extensions: yaml, yml or json.
CVE-2020-7654
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker before 4.73.1 are vulnerable to Information Exposure. It logs private keys if logging level is set to DEBUG.