It takes a real man to apologize.
Kaspersky has apologized for displaying a sexist pop-up advert in its security software. It's not sorry about showing adverts on people's PCs, however. The Russian giant's desktop software suite flings adverts, er, news items about Kaspersky products at users who have already paid for its applications. On Friday, one of these …
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Righty-ho. We won't apologize to yous lot, the disappearing breed of perpetually-offended delicate male who can't get along in the world.
See, this apology and retraction wasn't made in response to people being offended. It was done in response to people finding it inappropriate to cast Kaspersky users as desperate males trawling for incompetent females who will show their gratitude by sharing their dangly bits.
"Butt I'm not a sexist! I even *know* some women! Met them, anyway. Okay, walked by them in the street. Opposite side. I wasn't following them. I just happened to be running in the same direction!"
People, if you haven't used your "at works" skills in a private setting repairing/antivirusing a laptop for a cute member of the opposite, or same if you prefer, sex, then you are not a real tech wizard and you should pack up your books and laptop and chuck them into the Thames.
On the other hand, do NOT use your super-skills to hack into your heart's desire's laptop. That's stalking, bro. Be smooth. My first chance was in High School when I learnted the BASIC. You know what I'm talking about. So, the cutest girl in the class needs some help with her code... I just demoed a little bit of BASIC, then threw in a input question block, and proceed to fill it with "Do you have a boyfriend?" Ahhh, young tech love. Don't knock it until you try it. Be respectful, boys. I'm looking RIGHT AT YOU. You know what is proper and not, hopefully. Thank you.
Also, be on your best behaviour in 2024 when the first real woman will be visiting the Internet. Brush your things.
Nah I'll leave that to the betas.
First week of university, some girl's laptop was knackered, and my newly made geek friends who I met in the computer lab, spent hours pouring over the piece of crap.
Being an alpha geek, I said fuck that noise and hit the student bar.
Although nobody got laid that night, at least I didn't spend my evening wrenching on some shitty PC World piece of shit, while she flirted with the captain of the football team.
This post has been deleted by its author
"People, if you haven't used your "at works" skills in a private setting repairing/antivirusing a laptop for a cute member of the opposite, or same if you prefer, sex, then you are not a real tech wizard and you should pack up your books and laptop and chuck them into the Thames."
One time I did that for a fairly cute Swedish friend (she wasn't really a friend then, we became friends after). Didn't quite work out as I ended up having to reformat her laptop without being able to rescue her date. In my defence, one (or more) of the viruses present had done massive damage to all her files, and I don't think even a professional recovery service could have done much.
Thankfully, she was still happy to have a working laptop back, even if it did have none of her data. In fact she was so happy that as noted earlier, we became friends, but also she baked me two amazing cakes.
I think the real problem is that it wasn't hot enough. Take the Axe commercials. In case you don't know what I'm talking about: a deodorant which is pictured in commercials as a women magnet. Guy sprays something on him at the beach and in no time dozens of bikini clad women (and never any 300 pounders for some reason) jump all over him. My gf actually prefers that I don't use that stuff because of all that (and I can respect that). Edit: not so much because she thinks its sexist, but mostly because she feels it's just so utterly stupid that it's not even funny anymore.
But to my knowledge (read: after some Google searches) I can't find any info about people protesting against that. Just for the record: if I'd show this Kaspersky picture to my gf then I'm 100% sure about what's going to happen: nothing.
Which is another thing to consider: are the protests actually real? For all I know it could be an elaborated setup in order to try and gain even more publicity.
There are two important differences between Axe ("Lynx" in Australia) and Kaspersky. The first is that Axe is a product specifcally designed for males and thus it is fully understandable that the advertised outcome of using the product is something (at least supposedly) desirable for a man. The second is that Axe is a fragrance. It's purpose is (again, at least supposedly) to make you smell agreeable, particularly to other people. That their ads show women being interested in a man due to him smelling however Axe makes one smell is hardly surprising.
This just doesn't hold for Kaspersky because computer security software is not a product for men and it is not designed as something to make you attractive.
This ad shows women asking a man for help with their complicated computer things because they just can't figure out what all those lights mean and all the buttons do.
I find the Lynx commercials far worse than what Kapersky has done here. Honestly, I didn't have any negative reaction to the picture at all. Yes, it happens to be a guy surrounded by women who want to meet him but I didn't get any impression at all that the message was "women can't fix a computer" and more "women will be impressed if you're smart and go to Cybersecurity conferences". Which honestly, I found amusing. None of the women depicted are swooning damsels spilling their tits everywhere whilst an heroic male swoops in and undeletes their selfies for them. They look pretty smart, various and, well, depicted as people. Not as desperate sex-objects like in a Lynx (Axe to Americans) advert.
Seriously, I'm usually pretty sensitive to how women are depicted and viewed in the IT world, and all this ad says to me is "take a date to the cybersecurity conference - you'll attract smart, capable women". The ad is fine.
As is often the case, people getting upset about people getting upset at a sexist advert completely miss the point.
The point of this advert is to get women to go to a CyberSecurity World conference. But rather than expound the value of anyone going to the conference, they decide that the best way of achieving it is to get a man to bring them. Cos, what else would a woman be doing there?
The cartoon of the helpless females queuing up for the male to sort them out, is just that; a witless cartoon and not principally what makes this advert crass.
Why Kaspersky feel they specifically need to attract woman to CyberSecurity World is a different question. Perhaps because it features antiquated attitudes like that this advert illustrates?
Or maybe the other way around... geek lady with a line of admiring guys? Given the way the world is, any thing even remotely similar will offend someone. Best to stay with inanimate objects in ads... except for the beer commercials and maybe the 'Old Spice' label about "your grandfather"...
"geek lady with a line of admiring guys"
How about the Government sponsored "Money Advice service" ads from a couple of years ago which seemed to all consist of feckless man saying "I don't know how we can cope with all these bill" followed by strong "wife/partner" saying "I know what to do, we'll contact the Money Advice service". Actually the "useless man needing woman to sort out problems" is a pretty standard advertising theme - perhaps we should be congratulating Kapersky for reversing a standard sexual stereotype.
Actually the "useless man needing woman to sort out problems" is a pretty standard advertising theme - perhaps we should be congratulating Kapersky for reversing a standard sexual stereotype.
Those ads just infuriate me. Sick husband/dad in bed with caring wife who knows how to make it all better or hopeless-in-the-kitchen dad saved by simple jar-based dinner sauce - there are dozens.
But does that make the this instance okay? The point is that this is NOT reversing any stereotypes - it's just another one. And one that, whatever you feel about the validity of the criticism against it, the tech industry really doesn't need any more of.
This is one of the tropes that feminists are working to eliminate.
Female empowerment is also a means to making it socially acceptable for males to adopt "traditionally female" roles such as caregiving, cooking, paying the bills, etc.
If it's okay for girls to wear "boys' clothes" then it's also okay for boys to dress as princesses, too. "Femininity as weakness" is a myth that needs to be destroyed.
Sure, we do it a bit at a time. For example, it would be socially awkward for me to wear a flowing summer dress to work, but it would be only a little bit out of the ordinary for me to wear a kilt.
Hope that helps.
This apologising shit has got to end, you cannot comment on, or do anything without some faggot being so ass-pained that they try to make a federal case out of either a) a bad joke, or b) your opinion which they don't agree with. I read somewhere awhile back that some 40% of millennials would agree to peeling back to 1st amendment if it meant no more rude people on the internet. I declared my home a politically incorrect zone years ago, it's getting so ridiculous now that I might need to a build a wall of some sort or something...I already live in the woods
You could ask some of the male bears to help you, when they're not busy doing whatever it is they do there.
In California, they seem to be getting prone and readying to take it up the behind. Judging by the flag at least. It's probably the local rape culture...
Possibly, the only problem is that my doggies seem to have made friends with the bears (or at least signed some sort of non aggression pact that I missed), they are a bunch or retrievers though, I wouldn't put anything past them that does not involve extra sleeping or much past getting extra puppy treats
This post has been deleted by its author
Like usual the dog whistle social justice whining deflects from the fact that a corporation is putting intrusive ads on a product that has already been purchased. Granted having to have an antivirus program running constantly on anything but a mail server shows the problem may be with your operating system. Windows 10 especially has plenty of spyware built directly into the OS.
This post has been deleted by its author
I really hate it when organisations or people claim something that was a mistake when they apologize. The ad was deliberate, not a mistake. It may have been an error in judgement, but certainly not a mistake. The term mistake diminishes the apology as it takes no ownership. It also makes it seem like it could happen again. After all, mistakes happen.
Proper use of the word mistake:
Oops, I dropped a cup onto the floor while trying carry three back from the sink and it broke. That was a mistake. Next time I'll be more careful and take them one at a time.
Improper use of the word mistake:
Oops, I slept with your sister when you were on a business trip. I know I shouldn't have. It was a terrible mistake. Please forgive me.
Earlier today an inappropriate image appeared in in our product. It has been removed and we deeply regret this mistake and sincerely apologize for the offence we caused with this image,
We are talking about Eastern Euros and Russians here Mark, different set of rules and upbringing, SHIT I let that slip! call the PC police and ban me! I'm sure there are some 'false flag' injections of ads here or there, but this just looks like some guy and his co-workers and PHB, who thought it would get a laugh, not a sacrifice on the Tumblr alter
> How does that demand an apology? Said sister hopefully has her own agency, independent of her brother's.
Unless it's the hubbie who slept with his wife's sister while she (his wife) was on a business trip ... but then the two females should discuss a sharing agreement among themselves ...
It could also be the wife who slept with her husband's sister while HE was away. This sounds like a fun family. Better than mine for sure.
Without wanting a debate on semantics, something that happens as a result of an "error in judgement" is very much a mistake.
Yes, someone created this ad and others approved it - the ad was deliberate - but the outcome (people being offended) was not. But then, in your example of a 'real' mistake, carrying three cups at a time was also a deliberate action which resulted in an undesired outcome.
I can conceive of no useful meaning of the word 'mistake' that covers the the one but not the other.
In both instances, through insufficient knowledge, forethought, understanding, skill or judgement an action was undertaken that resulted in outcomes other than those desired.
While I quite enjoyed your post and the illustrations, when you say: "The ad was deliberate, not a mistake", I can't feeling that the word you're looking for is "accident".
Which is not to say that calling something is a "mistake" is the same as taking real responsibility but neither does failing to take ownership or apologise adequately mean that what happened wasn't a "mistake".
But sleeping with your sister was fun!
In any case, this advert was no mistake. It was deliberate.
It's the way the world works these days - say what you like, make it up, lie your tits off (possibly, maybe I'm looking at you Trump, you tell me). It doesn't matter if you have to backtrack, the seed has been sown.
Likewise with this ad - it might be taken down now but it got people talking. Maybe not in a good way, but any publicity is good publicity...
Kaspersky's next ad?
"He's not worried about viruses, he uses protection"
A teeny tiny fraction of easily offended pantywaists is dictating how the world eats, thinks, drinks, speaks and writes.
An entire gender conquered without a shot from Charman Mao's troops or threat of Stalin's gulags.
Bloody grow a pair and be MEN, not domesticated pets, seeking approval of the useless Twitterverse!
It's so bad that most of the MRA's are women, because we have forgot how to be the strong.
"Bloody grow a pair and be MEN, not domesticated pets"
Pushkin - possibly the world's greatest writer at the time - died in a stupid duel because a Frenchman insulted his wife and he had to fight to defend her honour. You think people are sensitive nowadays? Half the stuff on Twitter would have had our ancestors inviting someone to choose a weapon. And, had they decided discretion was the better part of valour, they would have lost their honour, basically their entire status in society.
If you actually try reading stuff from, say, the 17th century, you will find that writers are extremely polite about anybody who might manage to get near them, and their wives and daughters. Writers of scurrilous pamphlets - who had no honour - risked prison or the stocks.
Now if that's the kind of society you want, where you're free to express your opinions provided you don't mind some sensitive expert swordsman deciding to take offence so you can be used for target practice, well and good, but please have it somewhere else.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
"Now if that's the kind of society you want, where you're free to express your opinions provided you don't mind some sensitive expert swordsman deciding to take offence so you can be used for target practice, well and good, but please have it somewhere else."
Or anywhere in the here and now where a large proportion of the citizenry routinely are armed.
I know most of the things you think are happening are fictional, because they never happen to me. But then again, I never go around trying to offend people. Not even casually. But at the same time no-one really tells me I shouldn't say anything.
Now, you might say that it's because I've been castrated and I'm a victim of the gynocracy. But I'm pretty sure that every day is awesome, and it's mostly because I'm a white man.
So instead, I would like to counter with the idea that rather than other people removing your rights as a man, you've voluntarily castrated yourself in your head.
This is why they need to localise their ads.
US: Outrage because women can't do tech.
Western Europe: Outrage because everyone's white.
Middle East: Outrage because women aren't under blankets.
Eastern Europe: Outrage because man looks a little too sensitive for local tastes.
Freetard: Outrage because they've spammed an ad.
This post has been deleted by its author
I assume they're just there to get their laptop fixed while they go off to the bar to have a good time.
Anyway, proper advice is, buy a nice pair of shoes and a nice pair of trainers, wash everyday, floss, get a decent aftershave and learn how to cook one or two nice dishes. Also - decent hair cut.
Its the standard youll be more attractive to the opposite sex if you use x product. Its an advertising staple. The lynx ads were a lot more blatent and the diet coke ad bordered on porn. Its tongue in cheek humour people need to get over it. George Carlin was dead right
“Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.”
George Carlin was funny, but he's a comedian, and he made his living by saying offensive things in the right contexts. Unfortunately, he missed a massive part of why we have social norms, and why some of them need to change: sometimes you can say something, and it's fine, but in other contexts, it's not okay. I can watch Louis CK make a rape joke on stage, and that's fine, and it's actually funny. But you make the same rape joke in the office, and that's not okay. Of course, nothing is stopping you from dropping the n-bomb in the office, or referring to a woman by a vulgar name for her genitals, or making a rape joke. But you can't blame other people's sensitivity if you clearly did something that was going to offend, perpetuate a stereotype, or just plain piss them off. You can't run to free speech when you're merely facing the consequences of using your free speech: other people have the same right to tell you to shut up. And you can complain about social media pile-ons, sure. But that doesn't ever invalidate the two way nature of free speech.
People who tend to complain about things being too PC, or who complain about their freedom of speech being restricted, or who complain about how we just can't say anything these days, these are the people who are never the target of these things. These aren't the people who've spent the majority of human civilisation being marginalised and excluded, or sold into slavery, or told they have only one role to play, which involves squirting out babies. Or any combination of the above.
So Carlin was right, in a sense. Silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech isn't the best method for solving our inherent stupidity. But if we didn't do something, dropping the n-bomb in the office would still be the norm, because otherwise a minority of people wouldn't stop doing it. And we know that's the case, because it's been made perfectly clear that's not okay in the past, and people still do it. When you give them a cloak of quasi anonymity, they do it more.
It's a start. FWIW the Diet Coke ads aren't okay. The Lynx ads aren't okay. They are a simple example of the lowest common denominator in advertising. They're what you get when you strip creativity, and they're what you get when you try and create a target market of sex-starved middle aged women and sex-starved teenagers. I'm pretty sure there's more ways you could sell those two particular headaches in a can, but I don't watch broadcast TV, and I don't work in advertising.
You know, I wonder which is the most deplorable. A rather tacky sexist ad? Or the predictable enraged social media crowd?
There are plenty of ills in the world. Not least in the field of professional opportunities for women and sexual harassment. But is this worth much more than a shame faced retraction by the company? Followed by perhaps a change of creative agency?
SJW is more and more a shortcut term for idiots to avoid. Like their ancestors the PC crowd. Or bigots, racists, and misogynists.
SJW is more and more a shortcut term for idiots to avoid. Like their ancestors the PC crowd. Or bigots, racists, and misogynists.
I like the way you associate bigots, racists and misogynists with people who stand up against bigotry, racism and misogyny. It makes it clear that you are very much the idiot to be avoided.
This post has been deleted by its author
All I hear is "Waah, you're oppressing me!" whenever someone tells you how offensive you are being. Women have, and continue to be, harassed based on their gender and continually receive threats of sexual and physical violence on daily basis.
We live in a world where in 34 states of the US (Australia, New Zealand, and most countries in Europe), a woman can be charged with assault for fighting back against her rapist just because she is married to him. We live in a world were "She was asking for it" is a valid statement used to defend a rapist, a world were "She isn't acting like a victim so is making it up" has worked many, many times in court. We live in a world were a man seems to have the right to say lurid and disgusting things to a woman because she just happens to walk by. Fuck, we live in a world where a man can claim that the only people that are complaining about a sexist ad are whiny babies and be met with nothing but upvotes.
I hate that I need to keep saying this but:
WOMEN ARE NOT TRYING TO OPPRESS YOU. Women only want to be treated fairly, to be able to live without constant harassment, to have the same opportunity as anyone else.
WOMEN ARE NOT OBJECTS. Women are not there for you to leer at, to make sexual statements to, or there for your sexual amusement. They do not owe you sex, or dates, or anything because you are a "nice guy" (Hint: real 'nice guys' don't demand anything of anybody because they did something, they do things to be nice)
I am not saying any of this to impress a woman, or because I'm gay, or anything of the like. Its because I have achieved my dream life, a nice home that I own where my loving family is waiting for me when I come home after a day of work that I enjoy, and I want everyone to have that opportunity.
I will leer as much as I want, thank you very much.
Especially nowadays, where the overheated sexual competition among young females has led to delicious pretend-offerings of possibility of sex (it's all for show, of course).
Also, I think you are generalizing too much and using the "rapist" hammer pretty early on. Not to mention the "females have it baaaad" argument. Yeah, try to tell that to divorced dads in certain countries...
> They do not owe you sex, or dates, or anything because you are a "nice guy"
No, because if you are a "nice guy" you will die childless. Welcome to primate behaviour. Go for
the jugularsome other organ.
You do realize the absolute hypocrisy of SJW feminism and THEIR oversensitiveness? REAL feminists have disowned them third-wave-female-chauvinists. Don't believe me? Google "Girl Writes What?" and "Shield Wife".
It is impossible to get through to these types because deindividuated hysteria rules their very being - like swarming Africanzed bees, you can't use logic, links, facts or statistics against them.
Why act equal when you can just whine on a Twitter account and have everything handed to you.
What makes me REALLY sick are these weak males thinking they are men. What was it? Brainwashed by teachers? Weak parentage? What? I would like to know for my thesis on deindividuation and mass hysteria.
MRA's have been given a reason to exist. When you're denined employment or even access to your own family (like a crackhead mother getting custody over the CEO father, despite even the police involved recommended the father getting custody), we MRA's will fight to the last.
I go home after a day at work to a loving family
.. However, my dream life would involve not going to work & work time being spent in exotic locations with a troupe of contortionist nymphomaniacs
.. you need to up your dream quality mate.
Is life as a white male bloke in the UK actually really good still, despite the hyperbole knocking about in this thread?
All this rampant PC hasn't bothered me at all. I really couldn't care less if such adverts never reach my eyeballs. I don't feel any of my rights have been denied.
What am I missing?
Anyone can stick their head under a rock as their brothers are picked off and have a good life. I've considered it a few times. Then my family got hit by the filth and I now war.
I'd quote a famous Niemöller poem, but as I said about Africanized bees above and all.....
Seriously, you think a humorous ad suggesting people take a date to the cybersecurity conference has "destroyed their credibility"? This is a company that has consistently scored almost higher than any other anti-malware vendor for percentage of issues caught (Trend Micro matches them) and which exposed the Equation Group's work (NSA) - some of, if not the most, sophisticated malware we've ever seen? You think this ad "destroys their credibility"? I don't know what you're assessing Kapersky on that you think this, but it's certainly not the quality of their researchers or their product.
The group of ladies in the ad actually seem very inclusive race-wise. Maybe they represent the various peoples of the former Soviet republics including the Baltic and Central Asian states.
They all (including the fellow) look very modestly attired – professional and self respecting, with not a tattoo or piercing in sight. No projections of insecurity and everyone politely waiting without even one looking at their device or chatting on the phone.
You would have to be pretty determined to be offended by such a mild-mannered scene, as it would be difficult to create a more innocuous image.
While utilizing the Kaspersky antivirus, it can happen that the clients may confront some sort of issue in the working of the antivirus which may influence the working of the antivirus and would likewise make issues for the clients. By utilizing the 80000070 error kaspersky, a client can get finish answers for the issues right away.
Facebook parent Meta has settled a complaint brought by the US government, which alleged the internet giant's machine-learning algorithms broke the law by blocking certain users from seeing online real-estate adverts based on their nationality, race, religion, sex, and marital status.
Specifically, Meta violated America's Fair Housing Act, which protects people looking to buy or rent properties from discrimination, it was claimed; it is illegal for homeowners to refuse to sell or rent their houses or advertise homes to specific demographics, and to evict tenants based on their demographics.
This week, prosecutors sued Meta in New York City, alleging the mega-corp's algorithms discriminated against users on Facebook by unfairly targeting people with housing ads based on their "race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, and national origin."
The UK government has published its plans for reforming local data protection law which includes removing the requirement for consent for all website cookies – akin to the situation across much of the US.
Also notable is the removal of the requirement for a Data Protection Impact Assessment, as well as a new political direction over the Information Commissioner's Office.
However, Nadine Dorries, the minister for the Department of Digital, Media, Culture and Sport, rejected controversial proposals to remove the right to challenge automated decision-making. Privacy campaigners had said the proposals were "irresponsible" and would make it harder for people to "challenge the government or corporations."
The UK's Competition and Markets Authority is lining up yet another investigation into Google over its dominance of the digital advertising market.
This latest inquiry, announced Thursday, is the second major UK antitrust investigation into Google this year alone. In March this year the UK, together with the European Union, said it wished to examine Google's "Jedi Blue" agreement with Meta to allegedly favor the former's Open Bidding ads platform.
The news also follows proposals last week by a bipartisan group of US lawmakers to create legislation that could force Alphabet's Google, Meta's Facebook, and Amazon to divest portions of their ad businesses.
Meta's ad transparency tools will soon reveal another treasure trove of data: advertiser targeting choices for political, election-related, and social issue spots.
Meta said it plans to add the targeting data into its Facebook Open Research and Transparency (FORT) environment for academic researchers at the end of May.
The move comes a day after Meta's reputation as a bad data custodian resurfaced with news of a lawsuit filed in Washington DC against CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Yesterday's filing alleges Zuckerberg built a company culture of mishandling data, leading directly to the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The suit seeks to hold Zuckerberg responsible for the incident, which saw millions of users' data harvested and used to influence the 2016 US presidential election.
The average American has their personal information shared in an online ad bidding war 747 times a day. For the average EU citizen, that number is 376 times a day. In one year, 178 trillion instances of the same bidding war happen online in the US and EU.
That's according to data shared by the Irish Council on Civil Liberties in a report detailing the extent of real-time bidding (RTB), the technology that drives almost all online advertising and which it said relies on sharing of personal information without user consent.
The RTB industry was worth more than $117 billion last year, the ICCL report said. As with all things in its study, those numbers only apply to the US and Europe, which means the actual value of the market is likely much higher.
A bipartisan group of US lawmakers has proposed legislation that would likely force Alphabet's Google, Meta's Facebook, and Amazon to divest portions of their ad businesses.
The bill, called the Competition and Transparency in Digital Advertising Act (CTDA), was introduced on Thursday by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), with the participation of Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).
The bill would prevent large ad companies from participating on different sides of the ad transaction chain. Large ad firms could operate supply-side brokers selling publisher ad space, demand-side brokers selling ads, or ad exchanges connecting buyers and sellers – but not more than one of these.
Tracking, marketing, and analytics firms have been exfiltrating the email addresses of internet users from web forms prior to submission and without user consent, according to security researchers.
Some of these firms are said to have also inadvertently grabbed passwords from these forms.
In a research paper scheduled to appear at the Usenix '22 security conference later this year, authors Asuman Senol (imec-COSIC, KU Leuven), Gunes Acar (Radboud University), Mathias Humbert (University of Lausanne) and Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius, (Radboud University) describe how they measured data handling in web forms on the top 100,000 websites, as ranked by research site Tranco.
Google in the next few days plans to begin testing fenced frames, a proposed web API to help its Privacy Sandbox ad technologies meet commitments to privacy of a sort.
Fenced frames are designed to take the place of inline frames, or iframes, for specific scenarios like delivering interest-based ads without betraying interest data to the web page in which they're embedded.
Inline frames are web pages contained within other web pages, often across different domains. Unfortunately from a privacy perspective, they're porous, supporting APIs like
window.postMessage that enable the exchange of data between the enclosing parent frame and the iframe within.
Computer scientists from MIT Media Lab have exhumed the corpse of Google's FLoC ad targeting scheme and found that it lacked its key advertised ingredient: privacy.
"FLoC provides a privacy-preserving mechanism for interest-based ad selection," explains Sam Dutton, Google Chrome developer advocate, on Google's web.dev site.
Google has failed in its bid to dismiss a €150 million fine ordered by France's monopoly watchdog in 2019 for exploiting its position in the search advertising market, a court ruled on Thursday.
The sanction, equivalent to about £124.8 million or $163.2 million – or about 20 hours of the company's annual profits, based on its latest financial results filing [PDF] – was imposed by the French Competition Authority (FCA). The regulator criticized the search giant for "adopting opaque and difficult to understand operating rules for its Google Ads advertising platform and applying them in an unfair and haphazard manner."
Google vowed to appeal the fine, but lost its case after judges sided with the FCA.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022