Google starts tracking all your devices in 8 weeks
Google is changing its ads platform policies to allow partners to use device fingerprinting, shifting tracking away from cookies toward harder‑to‑avoid identifiers tied to browsers and hardware. Commenters see this as an escalation of surveillance capitalism that undermines meaningful consent and may conflict with privacy laws in regions like the EU and California. In response, they debate technical countermeasures (from Tor and Firefox anti‑fingerprinting to Pi-hole and DNS tricks), the limits of such defenses, and whether stronger regulation or even breaking up large tech firms is needed.
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.