RIP, Google Privacy Sandbox

After six years of work, Google's Privacy Sandbox, technology for delivering ads while protecting privacy, looks like dust in the wind. The Chocolate Factory on Tuesday raised the white flag and surrendered to pressure from watchdogs and rivals who preferred the status quo – third-party cookies and all the privacy problems …

[Andy Mac]

Do we even need cookies?

Between local storage, session storage, JWT tokens and the like, I’ve not found a need to use cookies in my work for a long time.

I’m not necessarily suggesting those options provide better privacy, just whether there’s still something that only cookies can do?

[mark l 2]

Re: Do we even need cookies?

I haven't noticed any major issues with websites since Firefox stopped blocking third party cookies by default, and I did manually disable them in my back up browser Chrome as well.

As they are pretty much only used for tracking and ads, so its not been a loss to me having them disabled.

[Sampler]

Re: Do we even need cookies?

I've had a few little problems where I've needed to re-enable third-party cookies for a site (such as getting my Telstra discount on Event cinema tickets back when they offered that) but outside such things it's been pretty plain sailing having third party cookies disabled.

[Irongut]

Re: Do we even need cookies?

I've been blocking 3rd party cookies for over 25 years. You do not need them.

[Boothy]

Re: Do we even need cookies?

I've also been blocking 3rd party cookies by default for a few years now. (Also running a Pi-Hole for DNS and DHCP).

I've not noticed any issues directly related to cookies, and any sites that do break (typically due to blocked DNS), I just go somewhere else for the info instead.

[Anonymous Coward]

Their profits

"By refusing to implement even the bare minimum protections they once promised, Google is making clear that user privacy comes second to their surveillance-based business model"

Your privacy is Google's profits. The more of your privacy they can sell, the higher their profits will be.

It seems the pressure of their competitors to share your privacy for all to sell becomes too strong. It this or being broken up in anti-trust proceedings.

There are alternative browsers that do not live from selling you.

[Fazal Majid]

Re: Their profits

"There are alternative browsers that do not live from selling you."

No, there aren't (yet).

Chrome is obviously out, Apple is increasingly relying on "services" (i.e. App Store 30% tax and advertising) to make up for a saturated smartphone market, Firefox is all-in on baking in advertising tech in the browser. Chromium-based browsers are all relying on Google's base, e.g. they will not be able to keep uBlock Origin when Google rips out Manifest V2 from the code base. The only glimmer of hope is from the Ladybird and Servo browser engines, but they are still at least 2 years away from being usable.

[Neil Barnes]

Re: Their profits

Firefox is all-in on baking in advertising tech in the browser.

Can you elucidate, please? I've obviously failed to notice something.

[Rich 2]

Re: Their profits

I can’t remember the details but if you go and search, you’ll find that Moz has been slowly making certain decisions over the last little while that don’t sit comfortably with a lot of its users (basically riding the privacy that FF has, until now, been known for

It’s very sad and very annoying. I’ve been a FF fan for longer than I can remember but have now moved to LibreWolf (I suggest you check it out). There’s also a GNU hacked version of FF (can’t remember the name) that removes the nasties that have been introduced but I’ve not tried it (I don’t think there are binaries readily available so you need to compile it and I don’t hate myself enough to endure the pain)

[wjl]

Re: Their profits

See here: https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/02/mozilla_introduces_terms_of_use/

[Rich 2]

Re: Their profits

Re “basically riding the privacy”

“Eroding”. Not “riding”. Bloody phone!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Their profits

"No, there aren't (yet)."

You should separate "privacy" from "advertising" or earning money in general.

You can advertise on a site, or search, with something relevant to the subject of the page or search without having any data on the person seeing the ad. Just knowing the subject of the page or search would be relevant, not who is looking at the page.

There are search engines that claim to do just that, and they pay browser makers that install them by default. No privacy related data change computers.

[DrewPH]

I started blocking 3rd party cookies as soon as a browser supported it (we're talking quite a few years now), and have blocked them ever since. I'm fairly sure this has not negatively impacted my life.

[mirka]

Blocking 3PCs absolutely should not harm an individual experience. An individual blocking 3PCs also does not harm Google or advertisers. A bulk of users blocking 3PCs however diminishes advertisers'=>Google's revenue, which is why Google resists blocking them by default. An alternative to targeted advertising is internet that pays for itself by other means, e.g. subscriptions or sponsorship by major players. Not necessarily bad but it's worth to keep in mind that unlike NYT, conspiracy-spreading websites are usually free.

[ComicalEngineer]

Your data = their profit

One particular social media website which I use occasionally (a somewhat niche user interest group) lists over 600 different "partners" all of whom want to suck up my useage data via cookies to give me "targeted advertising". I now run that site in a private window to make sure that the cookies aren't saved. along with an ad blocker.

[Irongut]

Re: Your data = their profit

Only 600? That is not a large example, quite small in fact compared to many major news outlets.

[v13]

What gives

So, if Chrome blocks third party cookies then the ads industry complains that it harms them and the regulators say it's anticompetitive. And if it doesn't then this is a privacy nightmare and regulators also complain.

Apple is having a field day.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: What gives

v13,

Regulators and rivals complained, because Google's version of blocking 3rd party cookies was to build an entire system designed round giving Google even more control of your data and who else it got passed to. The web is pretty much a privacy free-for-all (with Google and Facebook being the biggest winners) - but Google wanted to use their dominance of the browser (gained through sneakily installing it on peoples' PCs like adware) to increase their dominance of the advertising market (gained through controlling search). Hence the obvious interest from various governments' anti-trust departments.

[v13]

Re: What gives

Rivals complained because they'd lose user tracking. If Chrome blocked third party cookies without an alternative then that industry would partially collapse. Have a look at the report that the CMA punished on the subject when they objected to the privacy sandbox.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: What gives

v13,

I agree. And yet with "privacy sandbox" - Google got to control all that data still. So we gained a little bit of privacy, by losing 3rd party cookies, but the biggest privacy offender of all still got to be in charge of everything.

You can definitely make an argument that this is better. As Lord Vetinari would say, if you must have crime - better that it be organised crime.

But as well as the extra power that it gives to Google - there's absolutely no way that a monopolies regulator can ignore it. Google were allowed to use their monopolies in search and (basically their market power and the fear of them) to get their Chrome (browser) monopoly. Early on Chrome got most of its growth by installing itself along with updates of other software - I don't forget that it was originally delivered like malware. Obviously they also pushed it on their search home page as well, and whenever they had the ability to have a pop-up on a form you were filling in online somewhere that told you your browser wasn't modern and you needed to install Chrome.

Google also have an advertising monopoly already. Which they also gained from their search monopoly. The search monopoly was gained legitimately, but then used to finance or leverage them into monopoly positions in advertising, browser and phone OS. This would further entrench their advertising monopoly, and therefore should be stopped. As they should have been stopped from getting their phone and browser monopolies.

[s. pam]

win for uBlock Origin + AdBlock Plus!

I don't do cookies, nor does my wife.

Not sure why people still allow them!

[Long John Silver]

Advertising essential to mankind's wellbeing

Where would we be without rampant advertising?

How else would one brand of baked beans be brought to attention as superior to another? No matter that both brands belong to the same huge multinational conglomerate.

Two components of modern economies have established themselves as essential: marketing and copyright-based rentier activity. Their strengths rest upon the enormous numbers of people employed in middleman roles, and in the easy takings for those in charge. Consider, the vast welfare bills, should modern society be too squeamish to cull the displaced parasites.

Think too on the pinnacle of commercial culture: the influencer. Without them, how would empty-headed people be guided to establish a persona by virtuous disbursement of disposable income?

Advertising is the sharp end of marketing. To keep the wheels of commerce turning, people with products designed for our (their?) betterment must be permitted to intrude on unrelated activities. Lest economic and cultural collapse occur, it must be made a criminal offence to engage means for bypassing advertisers.

[Mockup1974]

What happens to the Topics API?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's run out of hazelnuts to put in every byte.