
With New Browser Tech, Apple Preserves Privacy and Google Preserves Trackers - dwynings
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/with-new-browser-tech-apple-preserves-privacy-google-preserves-trackers
======
tensor
_In tandem with their Better Ads enforcement, Google will also launch a
companion program, Funding Choices, that will enable CBA-compliant sites to
ask Chrome users with content blockers to whitelist their site and unblock
their ads. Should the user refuse, they can either pay for an "ad-free
experience" or be locked out by a publisher's adblock wall._

Does this mean that Chrome will be directly supporting anti-adblock
technology? Will it somehow just disable extensions like ublock on these CBA
supported sites?

~~~
derefr
Key part of the quote:

> publisher's adblock wall

The publisher is the one responsible for using a mixture of Javascript and
server-log analysis to detect ad-blocking users and prevent them from
accessing the content. As already happens on a growing number of sites.

The change here is that Chrome will now notice when a publisher has served a
user a "please disable your adblock for this site to continue" wall (maybe
Google will suggest such pages be sent as HTTP 402 responses?) and do
something on the browser-chrome level to give users the additional option:
using a Google payments system built into Chrome to send the publisher a one-
time [micro?]payment in exchange for unlocking that one article, without
having to disable their adblocker.

(Of course, many ad-supported publishers also already have ad-free
_subscriptions_ that you could sign up for—but they don't tend to bother with
one-off per-article micropayments, because going through the whole giving-out-
your-credit-card-to-a-web-form flow isn't worth it to read one article. This
would avoid that problem.)

Funny coincidence: I pitched this exact thing in the form of a browser
extension to a VC firm a few years ago.

------
Asdfbla
Never really thought of Apple as a defender of user privacy, but it does make
some sense. They aren't in the market for ads, so there's no reason for them
to make their users the product.

I think it shouldn't be surprising that Google acts like this. It seemed
likely from the start that their ad blocking effort is mostly an attempt to
preserve the ad industry and eliminate third party ad blocking not under
Google's control.

~~~
_red
Most people have realized this - either explicitly or intuitively - over the
last 10 years.

Those cheap android phones and lower-end Windows laptops are so cheap because
they are subsidized from the revenue they bring in via data collection and
selling.

Its like a privacy 101 realization...

~~~
pawadu
_> Those cheap android phones and lower-end Windows laptops are so cheap
because they are subsidized from the revenue they bring in via data collection
and selling._

Not true. Lets see what those "cheap" devices provide in terms of privacy:

1\. During installation Windows 10 explicitly asks you what stuff you want to
enable and how those affect your privacy

2\. Microsoft Edge supports ad blockers and anti-trackers on desktop, mobile
version is coming (already here in fast-ring?)

3\. Google allows you to turn off all kind of analytics. They email you once a
year and ask you to check your security and privacy settings.

4\. Chrome allows you to install ad-blockers from Googles own extension store

5\. On Android you also have the choice of installing Mozilla firefox which
supports desktop-grade adblocker and anti-tracker extensions. Android being
android you can make it the default OS browser and disable or remove Chrome
completely.

6\. On Android you can also install Mozilla Focus which is a privacy-oriented
browser

You are basically spreading FUD.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
_1\. Windows 10 explicitly asks you what stuff you want to enable and how
those affect your privacy_

Where does Windows explicitly ask for permission to spy on your every
keystroke and send massive quantities of analytics data back to the
mothership?

And, since they're explicitly asking, how can I explicitly turn all that
spyware off?

Oh, that's right, I can't. Because your assertion is flat out wrong, if not an
actual deliberate prevarication.

How is this even being discussed any more? Haven't we seen enough articles
about Microsoft's impossible to disable spyware? Windows 10 is spyware first,
and an operating system second.

~~~
pawadu
Are you claiming Windows 10 diagnostics is actually spyware and sends every
keystroke and other data to Microsoft?

~~~
PhantomGremlin
Thankfully the only Windows I currently run is XP in a VM isolated from the
Internet. So I have no personal experience. But the articles are all over the
Internet. Here's one I found quickly:
[https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/5/15188636/microsoft-
windows...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/5/15188636/microsoft-
windows-10-data-collection-documents-privacy-concerns)

Yes, there's plenty of "diagnostic" information sent to Microsoft. You might
be willing to trust Microsoft with it, but I sure don't.

Just like they claim the keylogger isn't really that, it's perfectly harmless.
Here's an early quote from Microsoft: _“When you interact with your Windows
device by speaking, writing (handwriting), or typing, Microsoft collects
speech, inking, and typing information—including information about your
Calendar and People (also known as contacts)…”_
[http://www.pcworld.com/article/2974057/windows/how-to-
turn-o...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/2974057/windows/how-to-turn-off-
windows-10s-keylogger-yes-it-still-has-one.html)

Is that still current? I don't know, why would I trust them to have removed
it?

Microsoft's game is to wear people down. Not everything can be turned off;
many things that can be turned off are turned back on by system updates. After
a while most people give up and live with the spyware.

~~~
pawadu
> Yes, there's plenty of "diagnostic" information sent to Microsoft. You might
> be willing to trust Microsoft with it, but I sure don't.

I have not seen any actual analysis of the sent data. I would prefer it didn't
send anything but until proven otherwise I will assume it is just app
diagnostics.

Remember they are in the business of selling operating systems. EU would
happily shut them down if they are caught doing any shenanigans.

> Thankfully the only Windows I currently run is XP in a VM isolated from the
> Internet

I suspect whatever OS you are using as host also talks to the mothership, it
just doesn't say it in a privacy page.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
_I suspect whatever OS you are using as host also talks to the mothership, it
just doesn 't say it in a privacy page._

MacOS has telemetry, but it seems to be easily disabled. Is it really
disabled? Nobody but Apple knows.

It's safe to say that both Windows and MacOS are chatty. But, for whatever
reason, I trust Apple more.

My firewall runs OpenBSD. That's a breath of fresh air. I can run ps and
understand exactly what processes are running and why. Definitely no
inexplicable TCP connections.

------
DannyBee
This is so odd. They say : "While we welcome the willingness to tackle
annoying ads, the CBA's criteria do not address a key reason many of us
install ad blockers: to protect ourselves against the non-consensual tracking
and surveillance that permeates the advertising ecosystem operated by the
members of the CBA."

"many" is a link to [https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/09/02/why-people-use-
ad-b...](https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/09/02/why-people-use-ad-blockers/)

Except that page shows that "to avoid being tracked" is actually relatively
low on the list of reasons people use ad blockers compared to the annoying
advertising issues, malware, etc?

~~~
bobajeff
It's relatively low but it's not insignificant. It's still about 39%. Also 60%
say its to avoid "intrusive ads".

------
0x0
The #1 reason to block ads for me is protecting against malware, both for
inline drive-by exploits and for scam sites offering backdoored downloads.

~~~
x0x0
This really is crucial for older relatives.

------
gcb0
...and eff forgets about mozilla.

~~~
zzzcpan
I think they do that on purpose. Mozilla presents itself as a good guy and
many people still believe that, so those people could get offended and not get
the point eff tries to make.

But yeah, Mozilla follows Google in this regard and it's in Mozilla's best
interest to preserve tracking and allow advertising industry to "hijack our
attention", otherwise they won't get enough funding to exist.

~~~
gcb0
except Firefox is the only mobile browser that you can run effective script
and ad blocker extensions. well, on android at least.

------
lotsoflumens
They still want users to either view the ads or pay the "publisher". This will
never work.

They must start paying users. Only then, will their ads be viewed.

------
mark_l_watson
For decades I favored Linux in the desktop, then adopted Android, etc.

In the last year, due to Apple's reasonably good support for privacy, I have
gone all-in for iOS and macOS devices. I didn't make this decision lightly,
but for me it seemed like the right thing to do.

I favor using Google services that I pay for (GCP, Play Music and Movies) but
I am concerned about tracking activities of Google and Facebook.

I think Apple deserves support for respecting customer privacy.

------
ams6110
uBlock to block the ads, disable 3rd party cookies to block the trackers. Add
a hosts file and you're miles better off than either of these proposals.

------
lupinglade
No surprise here. Ever heard of AdWords?

------
godzillabrennus
Wake me up when Apple has started helping foster a community of developers for
Safari plugins.

Chrome is useful because it's so extendable.

~~~
amartya916
I am sorry to say that you are ignoring the importance of privacy, and
somewhat flippantly making the case for extensibility over privacy. Safari's
(and Apple's) commitment to privacy is to be commended and we should try not
to lose sight of it because of our personal preferences.

~~~
xbmcuser
Apple sells default placement to search engines like Google and Bing. If it it
really cared about privacy 1\. It would not sell it's customers to Google or
Bing as search placement 2\. It would put duckduckgo or similar as default.

~~~
jolux
Once they have intelligent tracking protection enabled though it won't matter
what search engine you use, because it will prevent tracking on all of them.
Just including DuckDuckGo in the defaults is a huge step forward. I also
wouldn't be surprised if it was defaulted if Google keeps trying to circumvent
adblocking measures.

