back to article Google dragged to UK watchdog over Chrome's upcoming IP address cloaking

Google's plan to prevent marketers from tracking Chrome users across different websites by anonymizing IP addresses is being challenged by, surprise surprise, a marketing advocacy group. The Movement for an Open Web (MOW), an organization that has lobbied against Google's Privacy Sandbox initiative by claiming it's harmful to …

  1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

    They can object all they want, but this seems to work fine on the Internet as it is today. Nothing they can do to stop it.

  2. GidaBrasti
    Holmes

    Or use Tor?

    right?

  3. mark l 2 Silver badge

    Surely if 1000s of users are all looking like they are coming from one IP this is going to lead to a lot more CAPTCHAs for the end users as website will not know if they are genuine users or bots trying to hide their IP behind proxys?

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      So that's more AI training data for Google. Heads they win, tails you lose.

    2. v13

      Too late. This already happens with carrier grade NAT. It's the ISPs that won't be able to spy any more.

  4. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    I dont know

    whether to laugh or cry

    The marketeers are complaining they wont be able to track you (unless they pay google) by going "think of the children!"

    1. Rich 2 Silver badge

      Re: I dont know

      Indeed - we have a business that openly steamrollers over the public's privacy (and complains when said public have the absolute bloody gall to stop them by running ad blockers) complaining that another business is preventing them from said spying while they do exactly the same.

      You couldn't make this crap up! The whole lot of them need putting up against the wall.

  5. elsergiovolador Silver badge

    Stalking

    Why not regulator declares that any tracking is stalking and close Google and all other businesses engaging in this.

    1. Dinanziame Silver badge

      Re: Stalking

      The thing is that Google would be happy about such a regulation. They are in the absolute best position to show ads to non-tracked users based purely on the query they just entered.

      1. sabroni Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: show ads to non-tracked users based purely on the query they just entered.

        Then why the fuck don't they just do that?

        1. Catkin Silver badge

          Re: show ads to non-tracked users based purely on the query they just entered.

          It's more attractive to have a large pool of aggregated data.

    2. veti Silver badge

      Re: Stalking

      You have a strange idea both of the powers of a regulator, and the meaning of "stalking".

  6. spireite Silver badge

    Child protection

    If a spotty teenager wants to visit the usual dodgy places, he's likely in this day and age to use a VPN anyway since more and more browsers have one built in.

    I'm surprised the marketing bunch haven't asked to ban those.

    1. Spanners
      Black Helicopters

      Re: Child protection

      I'm surprised the marketing bunch haven't asked to ban those.

      They will. I have heard marketeers say that the British habit of making the tea when the adverts come on is some form of theft.

      1. elsergiovolador Silver badge

        Re: Child protection

        We could install cameras in every home. After all, people say they have nothing to hide.

        Then publishers could zap someone sneaking out to make a tea during the ad break.

        1. Andy The Hat Silver badge

          Re: Child protection

          ... and as we are going fully digital, perhaps all our phone calls should now be open so they can be "tapped" and "traced" for marketing purposes too?

          I'm no fan of Google's methods but this is marketer speak of the lowest quality.

      2. Dagg Silver badge

        Re: Child protection

        I remember years ago in the mid 80's I was living in the states and at the start of the major football (Gridiron) finals they actually displayed a grey screen on the TV as the advertisers realised that during the initial advertisements people got up and went to the toilet, got food, got beer etc and that no one would watch these expensive adverts.

        1. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

          Re: no one would watch these expensive adverts.

          Advertisers should have come up with such a brilliant advert that people wet themselves.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: no one would watch these expensive adverts.

            I think it would be absolutely amazing if uBlock ran a GoFundMe or something to buy all the advertising at a massive sports event and just showed empty banners. Literally adblock an entire event. I would chip in to see that.

        2. ridley

          Re: Child protection

          I remember tivo or it's like introduced technology that filtered out the adverts from recordings but was taken to court as this was "theft" and the sw was banned.

          Didn't stop me installing similar software on my tivo.

          I miss my tivo 1 even 20 years later, way ahead of its time.

      3. Robigus

        Re: Child protection

        Perhaps a system like 2024 spec vehicles in the EU/UK? Take your eyeballs away from where they are mandated to be (such as when overtaking a bicycle) and set off an alarm. You need this, because they say so.

        Look away from adverts/leave the room and automatically crank the TV volume up to 11, so viewers at least have the audio pleasure of adverts whilst in the kitchen making a cuppa. Perhaps the phone in your pocket could mirror the adverts everywhere you go too.

        Isn't our controlled future marvelous?

        1. SundogUK Silver badge

          Re: Child protection

          It's not going to happen because any party that suggests it is going to get bounced.

        2. mtp

          Re: Child protection

          See black mirror "Fifteen Million Merits"

      4. Barrie Shepherd

        Re:British habit of making the tea when the adverts come on

        Was there not a case made, when VCR's became popular for timeshifting that advertisers wanted the fast forward buttons banned so that people could not skip the ads?

        The world has apparently not grown up.

        1. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: Re:British habit of making the tea when the adverts come on

          It’s the frustration of watching anything on ITVX, it wants you to watch the adverts so no fast forward of adverts and active confirmation you want the stream to continue playing before each ad…

          The stupidity of the app developers, means the Humax PVR isn’t going to be retired anytime soon.

    2. Dacarlo

      Re: Child protection

      They don't need to advocate for that. The Government is trying to do that for them.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Child protection

      Probably referring to pedo detection rather than parental controls

    4. Orv Silver badge

      Re: Child protection

      There are a fair number of websites that will block or restrict your access if they detect you're using a known VPN endpoint. It becomes a bit of a game of whack-a-mole.

  7. Yorick Hunt Silver badge
    Trollface

    Now's a perfect time...

    ... To put both the plaintiffs and the defendants in a locked room so they can engage in some mediation... And blow the room up!

    1. Arthur the cat Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Now's a perfect time...

      And blow the room up!

      A little unsubtle and somewhat destructive. I'd suggest slowly replacing the air in the room with helium. The "why are you speaking in a squeaky voice?" " no, you're speaking in a squeaky voice!" conversation just before they pass out would be the icing on the cake.

  8. Splurg The Barbarian

    This Makes Me Feel Dirty

    This makes me feel dirty. On one hand I fully support Googe here (shudder!). Why should people be tracked across websites and profiles made for marketers to exploit.

    On the other there is a part of me that sees this as Google doing Google things to try and keep user.data and tracking to themselves to protect themselves a s chief trackers & profilers. You can guarantee this is not being done for our benefit but Google's.

    Is it possible for them both to lose?

    1. Paradroid

      Re: This Makes Me Feel Dirty

      This is exactly how I'm looking at it. Google looks like they're protecting users privacy but actually they're closing the door on the independent advertising industry, which they can do when they build the tracking directly into Chrome.

      The good old Privacy Sandbox. It isn't private and it isn't secure.

  9. Detective Emil
    Thumb Up

    “… turning off a number of campaigns …"

    Sounds good to me.

  10. Wade Burchette

    Not to worry, advertisers

    You don't need to worry, advertisers. For you see, people are still being tracked. Google is just making it hard for you to track people, not for them. Google is working quadruple overtime to make sure they can still track people. If you advertisers still want to track people, you will just need to pay Google for it. Their browser does, after all, track browsing history for marketing purposes.

  11. johnrobyclayton

    Now we need open first stage proxies

    Google is providing the first hop proxy.

    I see no reason why other organisations could not also provide the first hop proxy and browsers designed to implement this feature with a configurable first hop proxy.

    Add in a configurable list if first hop proxies with a shuffle option.

    Like having a list of DNS servers with a shuffle option to prevent any one server from having a complete list of dns requests that your computer is sending.

    It may be a technology that Google is developing for its own benefit but at its core is something useful that could be extended into a powerful privacy enhancing tool.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Now we need open first stage proxies

      https://www.torproject.org/

    2. graeme leggett Silver badge

      Re: Now we need open first stage proxies

      How about leaving Google off the first hop proxy list entirely....

  12. v13

    I'm getting a bit annoyed with the whole "protect the children" excuse for government-mandated privacy busting in the UK.

    1. Nick Ryan

      Probably because even the utterly racist Braverman couldn't find a way to blame the (legal) small boats for this one. Therefor it becomes a "think of the children" excuse instead, while carefully ignoring that almost all child abuse happens in the home, or by individuals who are very close to family.

      1. SundogUK Silver badge

        How in Gods good name can you call Braverman racist? She is of Indian/Tamil/Hindu and Indian/Goan/Christian heritage, married to a Jew and member of a Buddhist community. Fess up. You just don't like her, do you? Tosser.

        1. cleminan

          Just two things spring to mind; Her words & her actions.

          To my mind she doesn't come across as a particularly likeable person, happy to chuck a hornets nest into the canteen at lunchtime & walk away, 'nothin' to do with me, gov'.

        2. Knightlie

          Tell us you don't understand what racism is without telling us you don't understand what racism is.

        3. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

          Yes, that's right. Brown people can't be racist. Because racism is exactly one thing.

        4. Felonmarmer

          Remember what Rwanda used to be infamous for, before becoming an unexpected destination for asylum seekers.

          Yep one bunch of locals committed acts of genocide on another bunch of locals. The racial stereotype they used to identify the other side was height. To Europeans it didn't appear to be racist, but it was.

          You list a number of characteristics for Braverman to "prove" she's not racist, but one characteristic stands out by it's absence, and that's the main one she's being accused of racism towards.

          I admit I don't like her, but that's political, I'm allowed not to.

    2. unlocked

      Not just the UK sadly. "The children" are used as a justification for stripping away rights in the US as well, and I'm sure many other countries. If politicians want to protect children so much, they should focus on passing bills to reduce child poverty.

      1. Vometia has insomnia. Again. Silver badge

        That's what David Cameron did: he reduced it by redefining it to something more convenient. Convenient for him, obvs.

        1. RegGuy1 Silver badge
          Trollface

          David Cameron -- has been

          No wait! He's back! And Bravermann's gone! WTF?

          1. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge
            Pint

            Re: Bravermann's gone!

            So that's what the fireworks were for, last night.

      2. General Turdgeson

        But that would force those poor businesses to pay employees a decent living wages. Think of those poor CEOs! (sarcasm obviously and I 100% agree with you)

      3. Barrie Shepherd

        ...........they should focus on passing bills to reduce child poverty.

        ..........they should focus on passing bills to reduce poverty.

    3. General Turdgeson

      It isn't just the UK. The CSAR in the EU would similarly bust privacy in Europe, and they euphemistically named the proposal Child Sex Abuse Regulation so naturally anyone opposing that bill will obviously be against protecting children from sexual abuse. If that gets adopted, you can say goodbye to any online privacy in the EU.

  13. Tron Silver badge

    Just switch user-derived content to a distributed model.

    Whilst delivering advertising directly according to users' preferences.

  14. Mike007 Silver badge

    This whole idea of it being enabled by default is what worries me. As someone who knows it is only a matter of time before I am going to have to troubleshoot a user being unable to access an internal resource...

  15. BPontius

    Using a VPN hides your IP address and limits the tracking data to the VPN ISP, but you don't hear complaints about them. Reading Google's plan (and the protocols in RFCs) for the IP Geolocation for each proxy containing 1 million people, doesn't seem to hide you any more than the IP Geolocation given by your ISP POP (point of presence) locations shown when looking up your public IP address. The proxies will be set within a defined block of Google and/or other companies IP addresses just as with ISP's (publicly available info), in a defined geographic area that seems to increase the chances of being isolated. The Geolocation definitions are in XML files that also contain the GPS co-ordinates and radius of the defined proxy area, these XML files can be protected through various means, but with the history of servers being hacked I have little faith in these files remaining secure from hackers and being used against the users. If your ISP, Proxies or VPN are in the U.S or in the five or eight eyes countries (share intel with and from the U.S), count on your activities being logged no matter the marketing nonsense.

    Equally foolish is the belief that the anonymizing of the data collected by Google or any other company can or will hide you. Multiple studies have shown that no matter the size of the data set and no matter the methods of trying to hide the users. All were able to be identified, by their activities and various metadata left behind. They use the data for and sell it to marketing, advertising and research so there is a limit to the anonymizing they can do to the data before it is useless to them. This whole online privacy notion is Unicorn hunting, the vain search for a creature that does not exist.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      ECH (Encrypted Client Hello) fixes that. No one will be able to see what website you are talking to. Already works on Edge browser with some settings enabled. Say good bye to ISP filtering and blocking too.

  16. original_rwg

    B0ll0cks!

    "The Google-run proxy can observe the user's IP address but not the websites being visited"

    1. mattaw2001

      Re: B0ll0cks!

      This is one of those wonderful, twisty, phrases: Google Chrome the browser tracks you, so the Google proxy doesn't have to!

    2. Craig 2

      Re: B0ll0cks!

      I think this is just written in a way open to confusion - I interpreted it as "Google can see the user's IP, but the websites being visited cannot."

      Aside from that, NOBODY should be praising Google for this. It's purely a monopolistic land-grab since Google control the overhwelming majority of both advertising and browser markets. By locking them together they will become the identity gatekeepers and websites will have no option but to pay up for any kind of analytics.

      1. v13

        Re: B0ll0cks!

        That's fundamentally wrong. Analytics doesn't care about the user's IP which is already pointless because of Carrier Grade NAT. It's only the approximate location that's important and that can't be hidden because of legal implications, because the sites need to be able to know the country of the user.

        1. doublelayer Silver badge

          Re: B0ll0cks!

          The sites don't need to know the country, and existing VPNs that redirect traffic through a different country are perfectly legal. Sites sometimes make decisions on what to show based on the country the IP address is in, but nothing makes it illegal to lie to them about it.

  17. benderama

    Oh the marketers dont like it?

    Good. As an industry, marketers can rot. They’re about as useful as a glass of water while standing on the sun. And if any marketer is here, you can go to the sun at night when it’s cooler…

    But as people yeah you’re ok. It’s just the industry.

  18. PPCNI

    Blocking clicks on ads based on IP addresses

    Sounds good in theory but in practice it can't be done effectively in Google Ads as you can only exclude (from memory) 500 IP addresses not 5 billion.

  19. mostly average
    Mushroom

    They're both evil.

    Advertisers want to screw everyone. Google wants screw exclusivity. They're both evil. Screw them both.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    By separating the user's IP address from the user's destination through Google's service... Google will be the gateway to the internet. Besides tracking every single user interaction on the web it can also filter every freaking user request or redirect to whatever the hell they want.

    Sure, sign me up!

    1. Richard 12 Silver badge

      They already can

      This doesn't give Google anything they don't already have, because they own the browser anyway.

      It merely takes something away from certain websites.

  21. TheMaskedMan Silver badge

    "Google's IP Protection means ISPs will no longer have visibility of data via an IP address"

    Good. The nosey bastards don't need to know.

    If they can't use cookies or IP address to track users, I'm sure they'll think of something else - maybe a browser extension or toolbar (remember the days of toolbar infested internet explorers, with so many bars installed that there was barely room for page content?) Something that phones home for every site you visit.

    Of course, you'd have to make it something that the user wanted to install, something so damned handy that they couldn't live without it. And that's going to be hard, because you want it to appeal to just about everyone, yet everyone is different. Still, it's a possibility - anyone got the contact details for these marketing folks...? :)

    I do take their point about fraud prevention - that used to be a major problem in the early days of AdSense, and I'm sure it still is. But they must already have ways to deal with that for folks using VPNs, if they haven't they should have, and anyway they've brought this situation on themselves by being far too eager to track all the things, all the time. So, sympathy for marketeers:=0;

    1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

      "Google's IP Protection means ISPs will no longer have visibility of data via an IP address"

      Good. The nosey bastards don't need to know.

      Actually they do, but most of the time most ISPs don't want to know. It takes a lot of resources to log every session, especially when a visit to an ad or tracking infested website might spawn 50 sessions a user will be blissfully unaware of. Unless they use adblockers, then notice browsing is a lot more responsive. The only time I've ever needed or wanted to look at session data is when I've been trouble shooting problems, otherwise it's really aggregate flows I'm looking for, eg for peering analysis.

      However, Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC) was a thing, and the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 is still a thing in the UK. That forced ISPs to retain communications data, for some valid reasons, ie allowing LEAs to investigate serious crimes. As this is currently UK law, and similar legislation exists in other EU states even though the Data Retention Directive was declared invalid, how will Google comply with that legislation?

      I'm sure AlphaGoo will use it's billions of lobbying power and wine & dine real 'influencers', but their land grab is going to break a whole bunch of stuff.

  22. Roland6 Silver badge

    The MOW have a point…

    Chrome is Google’s browser, Chromes privacy sandbox is Google’s…

    From other articles about Google and Chrome, it is clear Google want ALL data from Chrome interactions for itself - remember Chrome’s incognito mode and privacy sandbox don’t stop Google collecting data about you. Given Chromes dominance in the browser market , this would seem to be monopoly behaviour…

    Suggestion would be for Google to divest Chrome, but still have to contribute financially to the Chromium open source project.

  23. FirstTangoInParis Bronze badge
    Mushroom

    Good to see that "Do Not Track" setting worked so well .....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Ironically, it became a part of the browser tracking fingerprint used by some companies.

  24. Ashto5

    Honey Voucher Plugin

    It knows everywhere you have been and what you did.

    Useful but insidious.

  25. Grunchy Silver badge

    Artificial Intelligent Observer

    It seems to me that Google has access to everybody’s email, all of which are exposed to an artificially-intelligent observer., which is owned operated controlled and queried by Google.

    “Hey Google, what are the top 5 stocks on Nasdaq that are gonna jump in value today?”

    Nice system.

  26. tiggity Silver badge

    I love the marketing BS

    "By monitoring individual IP address activity for each campaign and those IP addresses clicking on keywords 10+ times per day, we have been able to exclude these IP addresses," the purported marketer wrote in early August.

    In many a large company, individual IP address visible internally, go "external" , and just the one IP address (or maybe a handful depending on company size) "exposed" for all employees. SO that marketeer with their 10 click logic would thus have a good chance of excluding the proxy IP address of lots of big companies (in cases where big companies allow a bit of personal browsing e.g. on a lunchbreak or for information research purposes ).

    .. and I assume marketeers have heard of IP spoofing?

  27. DS999 Silver badge

    One HUGE oversight

    Google still collects all the data on what sites are visited, so the privacy is only one way to keep the site owners from knowing who is visiting. Oh wait, that's not an oversight that's by design - now the marketers will become beholden to Google for data on who is visiting their sites since they won't be able to collect it for anyone enabling this feature in Chrome!

  28. Grogan Silver badge

    I'm sorry, but I'll block the proxies or their entire CIDR blocks if I have to. I have a right to log the IP addresses that connect to my servers and I have a right to access control.

    Use a VPN if you want, but if you're evading bans and spamming, I'll block every fucking network they ride in on.

    1. doublelayer Silver badge

      Of course you have that right, and nothing about Google's response to the marketers would deny your ability to do exactly that. I will end up doing the same. While I don't agree with blocking entire blocks, I do automatically block abusive users, and it won't be long until some abusive bots start to use that proxy system. For the same reason, although I have not explicitly blocked Tor exit nodes, many of them can be found in my temporary blocklist based on someone using them to try something that my server saw as dangerous.

  29. Dagg Silver badge
    Devil

    Sorry still don't and cannot trust google!

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What more excuses do people need?

    Just STOP using Google, GMail, Google Docs, YouTube, Chrome, Android and anything else that they put out.

    There are alternatives people. Go cold turkey on Google and starve them of data.

    If I have to answer one of those stupid CAPCHA things then I either go to another site or access the site via a VM and a VPN that puts my IPP at Google HQ in CA.

  31. Edward Ashford
    Facepalm

    Oh great

    Two more links in the wobbly chain. What could possibly go wrong?

  32. Tubz Silver badge

    Will somebody please think of the profits and the poor bonuses the sales execs have to put up with. They have an expensive eye candy partner and maybe kids to support, super cars and yachts don't run on air alone and taking only 3 holidays a year will be unbearable.

    1. ecofeco Silver badge

      Not to mention the cost of hookers and blow! And politicians.

      Oh wait, that's redundant.

  33. navarac Silver badge

    Adverts

    I just ACTIVELY ignore internet/web adverts and will not consider purchases from them at all.

  34. rafff
    Mushroom

    Child protection`

    <q>"By monitoring individual IP address activity for each campaign and those IP addresses clicking on keywords 10+ times per day, we have been able to exclude these IP addresses," the purported marketer wrote in early August.</q>

    But why are they advertising CSAM material? If they are not doing so, this objection fails.

    1. Catkin Silver badge

      Re: Child protection`

      They could also be serving up NSFW adverts which I'm also not particularly fond of. It's strange that if I show something reasonably risqué to a non-consenting person in public, I could go on a register but advertisers are free to do so to me.

  35. Bebu
    Windows

    Surprised none of these clown and other usual suspects haven't suggested...

    mandatory client side certificates. If you wanted to access anything on the internet you would need to register and verify your identity in order to be issued with one or more certificates which would permit you to access your isp, google/bing etc, web sites and almost any other resource.

    Unlawfully obtaining, possessing, supplying or using such a certificate would be a serious offence and might get you sent Rwanda or someother ghastly place - not that contemporary England isn't a serious contender in the godawful places' league table.

    Fortunately I am pretty sure it would a) achieve anything or b) actually work but recent legislative history suggests neither failing would be a serious obstacle.

    1. ecofeco Silver badge

      Re: Surprised none of these clown and other usual suspects haven't suggested...

      Your're down votes are not for the post, it's for giving them ideas.

      For god's sake man! We have enough problems!

  36. aerogems Silver badge

    That is an... interesting argument for a group like that to make. It's probably technically true, but I'm sure by the same token it also makes it harder to harvest all that sweet PII about unsuspecting website visitors.

  37. The Dogs Meevonks Silver badge

    Here's how many adverts I watch.

    Zero... it's zero, it's been zero for years, it will always be zero as long as I have control over what I'm looking at.

    Broadcast TV... time shifting. I will pause live TV for 10-15 mins so that I can skip through the adverts, or I simply record and watch later so I can do the same thing.

    Online - I've been quite vocal about my use of ad/script/cookie blockers, forcing https everywhere and using a VPN 24/7 even though it means places might become unavailable to me. The BBC block you if you have a VPN now, as do Netflix once more... and by block, I mean... can't even load the site if connected.

    Print - LOL... who buys print anymore?

    This is the consequence of a toxic advertising industry... I will NEVER stop blocking them, making whatever data they can collect as worthless as possible.

    Next up... I'm gonna put together a pihole I think, was toying with the idea of getting one to run home assistant for my solar/battery system to maximise charging cycles at cheap rates. So maybe I can do both on the same raspPi

  38. ecofeco Silver badge

    Marketers hate it?

    GOOD!

    Marketers can piss right off every second of the day. They are the number one reason we can't have nice things, ever.

  39. ecofeco Silver badge

    Speaking of...

    When did El Reg start blocking posts and require cookies?

  40. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

    How is this not anti competitive ?

    Google already owns a significant portion of the advertising market, but they want it all. Typical American GREED. So what happens when they reach 100% ?

  41. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

    Said it before and will say it again.

    Third party advertising needs to be made illegal and a violation of human rights on the UN Human Rights charter.

  42. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So, if some intelligence agency wanted to monitor the entire world's internet traffic, they just have to gain access to the two proxy systems?

    The question is, does every intelligence agency in the world demand access using legal powers, do the proxy owners sell them a super expensive subscription, or do they hack in?

    I guess is depends whether they are on the good list, the maybe list or the naughty list.

  43. Kapsalon

    Well, the first hop will be Google, so Google sees the client IP. It also sees what you want to connect to before it sends it on to the second proxy.

    So Google sees all connection info. I don't see how to prevent the first hop from seeing all info.

    The second hop won't see the client IP, so the second hop is indeed in the dark about individual client connections.

    BUT: All only works if any data (so not the IP header, but data layer) is properly inspected to prevent IP leakage in the data part.

    Oops, this is not possible as all is end-2-end encrypted.

  44. idiotsavant

    Google Chrome nudges you to "turn on sync"

    Assuming the two proxy setup works as designed, the big advantage Google has over anyone else is the in-browser data collection in Chrome. If you "turn on sync" as it suggests then it tracks every place you visit to "improve the relevance" of your search results and so you can sync you tabs across devices (a feature of very little value to me). If you're still in the Google-verse because you have to be then it's worth running their privacy checkup. You might find almost all the data they have on you is coming from Chrome because of this setting.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like