What are the concerns surrounding Google’s new rules?
Privacy campaigners have voiced strong objections to Google’s updated rules that allow for “fingerprinting,” claiming it fundamentally disregards user privacy. Starting Sunday, this change facilitates online advertisers collecting detailed data about users, including their IP addresses and device information.
The Shift in Google’s Stance
Google previously condemned fingerprinting, asserting in a 2019 blog post that it “subverts user choice.” However, the company now argues that modern internet use, involving diverse devices like smart TVs and gaming consoles, necessitates this new approach for ad targeting. “Privacy-enhancing technologies offer new ways for our partners to succeed on emerging platforms… without compromising user privacy,” Google stated.
Fingerprinting: What It Is and Its Implications
What is fingerprinting?
Fingerprinting involves collecting various bits of information about a person’s device and browser. This can include screen size, language settings, timezone, browser type, and even battery level. Critics argue that when combined, these data points can create a unique profile that makes tracking users easier.
Why is this concerning?
Unlike cookies, which users can manage, fingerprinting operates largely behind the scenes. Opponents argue this diminishes user control over personal information. Lena Cohen from the Electronic Frontier Foundation remarked, “By explicitly allowing a tracking technique that they previously described as incompatible with user control, Google highlights its ongoing prioritization of profits over privacy.”
The Advertising Industry’s Response
Many in the advertising sector illustrate a growing concern about Google’s shift. Pete Wallace from GumGum stated, “Fingerprinting feels like it’s taking a much more business-centric approach to the use of consumer data rather than a consumer-centric approach.” This shift raises alarms about a potential backlash against privacy-centric initiatives that have recently gained traction.
Regulatory Oversight
What do regulators think?
The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) decried fingerprinting as “not a fair means of tracking users online,” marking it likely to reduce user control over personal information. The ICO has called this change irresponsible, insisting that any businesses employing this technology must demonstrate compliance with data privacy laws.
Moving Forward
In response to these criticisms, Google assures users that it offers choices regarding personalized ads. Nevertheless, as advertisers seek to improve their targeting capabilities post-cookie phase-out, many may turn to fingerprinting, leading to more heated debates over how to balance data use and privacy.
Conclusion
As Google embarks on this controversial path, it highlights a pivotal moment in online privacy discourse. The effectiveness of these fingerprinting techniques versus consumer privacy rights remains a pressing issue for both users and regulators alike.
