Google cools on cookie phase-out while regulators chew on plans

Google's plan to phase out third-party cookies in Chrome is being postponed to 2025 amid wrangling with the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). The US ad search and cloud giant noted the challenges in "reconciling divergent feedback" over its plans and the need to ensure …

[Rich 2]

What I would like to see

To paraphrase James Roswell, quoted in your story, what I would like to see is something that “removes the ability of website owners, agencies and marketers to target and measure their campaigns using their own combination of technologies or anyone else’s”

[captain veg]

here's an idea

Some other browsers allow configuration to reject or allow third-party cookies. Chrome could do that too, and set the default value to "Reject". No proprietary and convoluted "Privacy [sic] Sandbox" required.

-A.

[abend0c4]

Re: here's an idea

They could, but I think it's decent of them to offer us the opportunity to glimpse the horrific world of the Internet as Google imagines it.

[Adam Azarchs]

Re: here's an idea

Do note that the reason they haven't done that yet is that government regulators aren't allowing them to m

[Ayemooth]

Re: here's an idea

Really? I thought various other browsers already block third party cookies by default. I've not heard anything mention of government regulators having concerns about that. Chrome could do the same anyway time. Ever wondered why it doesn't?

[elsergiovolador]

CMA

Chasing Massive Attention again, the CMA fusses over cookies while a feast of issues awaits. How about sinking their teeth into the real meat - tackling price-gouging, breaking up monopolies, and stirring the pot on anti-competitive practices? It’s high time we seasoned these pressing matters with some regulatory spice to ensure fair prices and keep the market truly open. Now, wouldn’t that be a tastier dish for consumers?

[Alumoi]

Re: CMA

You're joking, right?

Every day is election day somewhere in the world. Do you want politicians to starve? Think of (their) children.

[Dave559]

Re: CMA

But Google is trying to do this so as to give itself even more monopolistic power regarding internet advertising, so it is only right that the CMA scrutinises this in detail.

[Henry Wertz 1]

The other issue...

See, this is making it sound like the issue is the removal of cookie support. But, Google's plan is to remove cookie support, while touting their replacement system. I will leave this as an exercise to the reader to imagine why this could run afoul of regulators both on the basis of privacy issues and it being anti-competitive.

"Chrome notes your topics of interest based on the sites you browse and how often you visit them. Sites can also store info with Chrome about your interests. As you keep browsing, Chrome may be asked to share stored info about ad topics or site-suggested ads to help give you a more personalized ad experience. To measure the performance of ads, limited types of data can be shared among sites and apps."

I don't turn off my cookies or anything. But I will note, this effectively replaces a system with a little transparency (you can see cookies in a cookie editor, block them per-site, delete per-site cookies and block sites from storing them individually if you wish.) That system with some transparency is replaced with a system with none (you have these on/off switches for ad data collection; there's an area in the privacy settings listing what topics you've been clocked in for, and a box to block ones; but apparently only once once is already on the list, since there's no list of topics to see what topics it CAN decide on. Don't know what the categories are, how the browser decides on them, or how that information is handed over to advertisers or site owners or whoever. And in Chrome, the only control is to turn it on, turn it off, and clear your browser history if you want to clear it.)

[hayzoos]

Re: The other issue...

Coming from Google, it could be even more sinister. Their dossier on each of us could survive a browser history clearing. Imagine their is nothing you can do to to prevent them from building dossiers in the name of targeted advertising but useful for so much more and of course more valuable.

I already practiced fresh browser sessions which includes accepting all cookies but they are gone for next session along with all data and a best attempt at changing the browser fingerprint. I do block malvertising (all ads served third-party are suspect) and the same goes for all third-party "content" (scripting, style sheets, fonts, etc). I only unblock anything if I must use the site. The status quo for the average website these days requires so much third-party "content" that it would have made a textbook example of a malicious site in early cybersecurity texts.

What Google is now proposing will overcome this blind (not really just a bit fuzzy) spot I present to them. Additionally, it will be visible to just Google. And this is what I can discern from the little they have revealed of their plans. They would be fools to reveal their entire plan.