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?

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
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.