Google starts tracking all your devices in 8 weeks

Policy change & scope

• Discussion centers on Google’s ad platform policy update that removes an explicit ban on device fingerprinting and becomes “less prescriptive” on targeting and measurement.
• Several commenters note the change appears to allow third‑party device fingerprinting in Google’s ads ecosystem; others point out it’s unclear what Google itself will do.
• Some argue this would be illegal without consent in the EU, UK, and California; expectation is rollout may be region‑limited, but this is not confirmed.
• Confusion remains: the article is seen as vague, and the official policy text is interpreted differently by participants.

Fingerprinting, tracking, and privacy impact

• Fingerprinting is contrasted with cookies: it cannot be cleared client‑side and can follow users across devices once any account linkage occurs.
• Tools like EFF’s “Cover Your Tracks” show many users have unique browser fingerprints, even on stock devices, due to combinations of headers, fonts, APIs, etc.
• Web Audio, graphics APIs, font lists, hardware info, and language/locale settings are cited as high‑entropy leaks that exist largely due to advertising and “surveillance capitalism” pressures.
• Some see this as de facto elimination of privacy; others say such cross‑device targeting has existed in ad tech for years.

Mitigations and technical countermeasures

• Common strategies discussed: Firefox + uBlock Origin, Tor Browser (with caveats: breakage, stigma, JS disabled), Pi-hole, router‑level blocks, DNS/DoH blocking, VPN/proxy, randomizing user agents and network settings.
• Limitations are noted: hardcoded IPs, DoH, Android/OS‑level tracking, and Chrome’s Manifest V3 rule limits.
• Ideas raised: kernel‑level anti‑tracking, deterministic or sandboxed browsers that normalize all fingerprints, AI‑based ad blockers, and stricter treatment of fingerprinting as a browser security vulnerability.

Browser, standards, and ecosystem criticism

• Many blame Chrome’s dominance and Google’s funding of standards for the persistence of fingerprintable APIs.
• Some argue for separate “web” vs “app runtime” modes with stronger privacy in the former.
• Debate over alternative browsers (Brave, ungoogled Chromium, Firefox) includes skepticism about any ad‑funded or crypto‑tied browser.

Regulation, ethics, and user attitudes

• Strong sentiment that persistent tracking is incompatible with individual liberty and should be outlawed or heavily constrained.
• Others note that regulators are structurally weaker than multinational tech firms and that some companies now act with a “what will you do about it?” posture.
• Several commenters express total rejection of the ad industry, vowing to block ads and use piracy or paywalls circumvention instead.