Google may ditch 'cookies' as online ad tracker

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by mlauzon, Sep 18, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mlauzon

    mlauzon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Posts:
    107
    Location:
    Canada
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/09/17/google-cookies-advertising/2823183/
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 18, 2013
  2. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    FWIW, I don't think full quotes are allowed, but interesting story :thumb:
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2013
  3. Reality

    Reality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    689
    Mmmm interesting, not that I understand all the technological aspects in this byplay between the ad industry and Google, but this I do know....where Google's concerned privacy wise anything they (appear to) give with one hand they take back (more) with the other. :shifty: :thumbd:
     
  4. Trespasser

    Trespasser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2005
    Posts:
    1,194
    Location:
    Virginia - Appalachian Mtns
    Amen to that. I don't trust Google at all. Invasion of my privacy has always been their main objective and I resent them for that. That's why I avoid using anything Google where possible.

    Later...
     
  5. Reality

    Reality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    689
    Here here! I am dumbfounded at the amount of times I see them "pop up" online. Would love to build a list of all that is Google. I'm beginning to wonder if they practically own the internet. :( You don't get to be as big as Google unless you've kow-towed to the spyster team at the top. (NSA etc)
     
  6. Nebulus

    Nebulus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Posts:
    1,582
    Location:
    European Union
    Somehow, the way they mention Chrome in the article, and the quote above makes me believe that this new method will be restricted to the Chrome browser.
     
  7. Snoop3

    Snoop3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Posts:
    474
    "anonymous identifier" o_O


    can't we build a list on here of Google IP ranges and domain names that should be blocked?
    i have some but not sure where to get a complete list.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2013
  8. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Why not just block USA entirely? Along with China, Russia, Major Corporations, and Governments, if you're not a boycotting hypocrite. Pretty sure blocklists exists for those.
     
  9. Reality

    Reality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    689
    Would love a list, Snoop. Everyone could just add to the pile as something new comes up, then maybe just make a concise list in one post or something. Guarantee there's so many in the woodpile, no one person could possibly cite them all. :eek:

    Mods/OP, can you please advise if it's appropriate to start a "Google list" here or to start a new thread?
     
  10. Snoop3

    Snoop3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Posts:
    474



    these are the IP ranges i've been using in PeerBlock - (hope i got them right)

    Google 1:64.18.0.0-64.18.15.254
    Google 2:64.233.160.0-64.233.191.254
    Google 3:66.102.0.0-66.102.15.254
    Google 4:66.249.64.0-66.249.95.254
    Google 5:72.14.192.0-72.14.255.254
    Google 6:74.125.0.0-74.125.255.254
    Google 7:173.194.0.0-173.194.255.254
    Google 8:209.85.128.0-209.85.255.254
    Google 9:216.239.32.0-216.239.63.254

    i'd like to add others like facebook too. just the major trackers.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2013
  11. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    I've mistakenly clicked on Google Ads when i search things and EAM blocks it. Now im not saying they are unable to track me, just that they usually dont get money from me. (Unless i disable EAM Surf Protection on purpose)
     
  12. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    Here's a few for them
    69.63.176.0-69.63.191.255
    69.171.224.0-69.171.255.255
    66.220.144.0-66.220.159.255
    173.252.64.0-173.252.127.255

    Making a custom blocklist might be better in a separate thread.
     
  13. wat0114

    wat0114 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Posts:
    1,984
    Location:
    Canada
    No longer do I have any Google-associated accounts (used to have Gmail and Youtube accounts), although I do use Chrome browser running on Linux mint xfce. I can't quite drop it in favour of Firefox because:

    1. It's noticeably faster than Firefox

    2. Cookie management and available cookie-control extensions are better than what Firefox has.

    3. The underlying security architecture of Chrome browser with its sandboxed renderers, especially for Linux, is better than Firefox. As far as security extensions go, however, nothing beats Firefox' NoScript, so a big plus there for Firefox.

    Otherwise I block mostly everything Google-related via cookie control and Ghostery.
     
  14. Nebulus

    Nebulus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Posts:
    1,582
    Location:
    European Union
    More on the original topic:

    Google Is Exploring an Alternative to Cookies for Ad Tracking
     
  15. tlu

    tlu Guest

    I agree with 3. Regarding 1. - my impression is that surfing the web with Firefox has become as fast as with Chrome while starting the browser is still faster for Chrome compared to Firefox (although that doesn't really annoy me). However, your point 2 surprises me a bit since there are some very good Firefox extensions making a comfortable cookie control a breeze, IMHO.

    Aside from some changed Chrome settings (e.g. regarding the default search engine etc.) I block Google services like Google Analytics, doubleclick, googleadservices with my hosts file and dnsmasq as mentioned here.
     
  16. wat0114

    wat0114 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Posts:
    1,984
    Location:
    Canada
    It's probably a result of my ageing hardware. I mean Chrome's not leaps and bounds faster, but still I can see a faster page loading in Chrome, especially with heavy active content.

    Unless I'm missing it, I haven't found a Firefox cookie control extension (at least one still in active development) that allows me to block individual components of a cookie such as Youtube's "Visitor_Info1_Live" and "PREF". "Edit this Cookie" for Chrome is awesome.
     
  17. Snoop3

    Snoop3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Posts:
    474
    thanks.
     
  18. tlu

    tlu Guest

    I don't know if such an extension exists since I haven't been using Firefox very much lately. In Chrome, I only accept session cookies by default (and I block 3rd party cookies) with only few exceptions. And even the session cookies are deleted after 15 minutes by the Vanilla Cookie Manager. So I don't think that I have a need to block individual components of a cookie. Or am I mssing something? Why do you regard that necessary?
     
  19. wat0114

    wat0114 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Posts:
    1,984
    Location:
    Canada
    Only for a couple sites, in particular youtube and calgarysun.com. youtube.com is a first party cookie which of course I don't want to block, so if I block those two components I mentioned above, youtube will never display recommended videos, and nor will it remember my preferences. Actually, all comments for videos are blocked too. It's a privacy-enhancing step I take. With calgarysun.com ( I block "cas_meter") it can't "count" the number of articles I read. Therefore I'm not limited to the maximum 20 allowed before payment is required for the online news :)
     
  20. tlu

    tlu Guest

    Clever :thumb: I hadn't thought about that before. Now I'll have to see if I can use this trick for specific sites, too ;)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.