Critics say that Google rules put profits on privacy

Privacy activists have called Google’s new rules about the monitoring of people online “a shameless contempt for user privacy.”

The changes that are presented on Sunday allow the so -called “digital footprints”, which allows advertisers online to collect more data on users, including their IP addresses and information about their devices.

Google says that these data are already widely used by other companies, and continues to encourage the use of responsible data.

However, the company had left strongly against this type of data collection, saying In a 2019 blog That fingerprint “subverts the user’s choice and is wrong.”

But in a mail When announcing the new changes in the rules, Google said that the way people used internet, as devices such as smart televisions and consoles, meant that it was more difficult to direct ads to users who use conventional data collection, than users They control with the consent of cookies.

It also says that more privacy options provide security to users.

Google told the BBC in a statement: “Technologies to improve privacy offer new ways for our partners to succeed on emerging platforms … without compromising user privacy.”

But change opponents say that the fingerprints and the collection of IP addresses are a blow to privacy because it is more difficult for users to control what data are collected on them.

“By allowing digital footprints, Google has given itself, and the advertising industry that dominates, the permit to use a way of monitoring that people cannot do much to stop,” said Martin Thomson, an engineer Distinguished from Mozilla, rival of Google.

The fingerprints collect information about the device and browser of a person and the Board to create a profile of that person.

The information is not explicitly collected to announce people, but can be used to direct specific ads based on that user’s data.

For example, screen size or person’s language configuration are legitimately necessary to show a website correctly.

But when that is combined with its time zone, the type of browser, the battery level, and many other data points, can create a unique combination of configurations that facilitates the exercise of who is using a web service.

These details together with someone’s IP address, the unique identifier used by Internet devices, were previously prohibited by Google for advertisement guidance.

Privacy activists say that, unlike cookies, which are small files stored in a local device, users have little control over whether they send fingerprint information to advertisers.

“By explicitly allowing a monitoring technique that they previously described as incompatible with user control, Google highlights its continuous prioritization of profits on privacy,” said Lena Cohen, technologist for the staff of the Frontier Electronic Foundation.

“The same follow -up techniques that affirm that Google is essential for online advertising also exposes the confidential information of people to data corridors, surveillance companies and application of the law,” he added.

“My argument would be that digital footprints are in a gray area,” says Pete Wallace, of the Gumgum advertising technology company.

“Should people feel comfortable remain in a gray privacy zone? I would say no,” he adds.

Gumgum, who has worked with the BBC in the advertising campaigns before, is based on something called contextual advertising, which uses other data points to attack advertisements to online users, such as keywords on the website on which they are found, in place of your personal data.

Wallace says that allowing digital footprints represents a change in the industry.

“The fingerprints feels as if they were adopting a much more business focus on the use of consumer data instead of a consumer -centered approach,” he says.

“This type of Flip-Floping is, in my opinion, harmful to that route that the industry seemed to be taking this idea of ​​really putting the privacy of the consumer at the forefront.”

He adds that he expects advertising technology companies to conclude “that it is not the appropriate way to use consumer data”, but hopes that they consider the fingerprints as an option to better direct the ads.

Advertising is the soul of the Internet business model and allows many websites to be available for free for users without having to pay directly to access them.

But in return, users often have to give up private information about themselves so that advertisers can show them relevant ads.

The United Kingdom’s data regulator, the Information Commissioner (ICO) office, says that “the fingerprint is not a fair means to track online users because it is likely to reduce the choice and control of people on How your information is collected. “

In Blog In December, the ICO Regulatory Risk Executive Director Stephen Almond wrote: “We believe that this change is irresponsible.”

He added that advertisers and companies that decide to use this technology will have to demonstrate how they remain within data and privacy laws in the United Kingdom.

“Based on our understanding of how fingerprint techniques are currently used for advertising, this is a high bar to meet,” he wrote.

Google said in a statement: “We hope to have more discussions with the ICO about this policy change.

“We know that data signals such as IP addresses are already commonly used by others in the industry today, and Google has been using IP responsible for combating fraud for years.”

A spokesman added: “We continue giving users the option to receive personalized ads and we will work throughout the industry to encourage the use of responsible data.”