
Google has secret webpages that feed your personal data to advertisers - OrgNet
https://www.cnet.com/news/google-has-secret-webpages-that-feed-your-personal-data-to-advertisers-report-says/
======
wlesieutre
Primary source is at the top of HN:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20876248](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20876248)

[https://brave.com/google-gdpr-workaround/](https://brave.com/google-gdpr-
workaround/)

Good to see wider coverage though!

------
eitland
> In response, Google said Wednesday it doesn't serve "personalized ads or
> send bid requests to bidders without user consent."

Two things:

\- The thing that seems to be most companies idea of "user consent" is
laughable.

\- Also it seems they are dodging the real question: nobody is asking if
Google has something written about consent somewhere in a document that we
were forced or tricked to accept. The question here IIRC is if they are going
beyond even that and are sending personally identifiable information directly
to shady companies.

------
mindslight
So within a few hours, a primary source describing "Push Pages" \- a concept
easily grokkable with light skimming - has been processed into understanding-
destroying moron-appealing not-even-wrong clickbait of "Google has secret
webpages".

Some "journalist" was directly responsible for this vile transmutation. What
the fuck is wrong with them?

The larger analysis is that much modern news is being reported directly on
blogs, making repetition by traditional "news organizations" like CNET simply
unnecessary. But like so much of our post-scarcity society, rather than
pivoting to focus on accomplishing something useful, they insist on sticking
around to make things worse for everyone.

------
lalos
Someone should do a zero-day privacy bug (feature?) blog. End result is the
same, breach of data and trust but some are mistakes and the others are coded
on purpose.

------
zeta0134
This cnet article is really light on technical details. The feature described
appears to be the Push Pages flow, documented in this Brave research article:

[https://brave.com/google-gdpr-workaround/](https://brave.com/google-gdpr-
workaround/)

Given that the CNET article is so light on details, I'm tempted to consider it
as a duplicate of this more direct post, which has a lively discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20876248](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20876248)

~~~
Despegar
The entire top comment and the replies are on an off-topic tangent.

