Privacy advocates have criticized Google’s newly implemented tracking policies as a clear violation of user privacy.
Starting Sunday, the updated regulations permit the practice of “fingerprinting,” enabling online advertisers to gather extensive information about users, including their IP addresses and device details.
Google asserts that this data collection method is already prevalent among other companies and emphasizes its commitment to promoting responsible data usage.
Nevertheless, the company had previously taken a strong stance against such data collection practices, stating in a 2019 blog post that fingerprinting “undermines user choice and is unethical.”
In a recent announcement regarding the rule changes, Google explained that the evolving nature of internet usage—particularly with devices like smart TVs and gaming consoles—has made it increasingly challenging to target advertisements effectively using traditional data collection methods, which rely on user consent through cookies.
The company also claims that enhanced privacy options will provide users with greater security.
In a statement to the BBC, Google remarked: “Privacy-enhancing technologies present new opportunities for our partners to thrive on emerging platforms… without compromising user privacy.”
However, critics of the new policy argue that fingerprinting and IP address collection significantly undermine privacy, as it becomes more difficult for users to manage the data collected about them.
“By permitting fingerprinting, Google has granted itself—and the advertising sector it leads—authorization to employ a tracking method that users have limited ability to prevent,” stated Martin Thomson, a distinguished engineer at Mozilla, a competitor of Google.
What is fingerprinting?
Fingerprinting involves the collection of data regarding an individual’s device and browser, which is then synthesized to form a profile of that individual.
Although this information is not directly gathered for the purpose of advertising, it can be utilized to deliver targeted advertisements based on the user’s data.
For instance, details such as a user’s screen size or language preferences are necessary for the proper display of a website.
However, when this information is aggregated with additional data points like time zone, browser type, and battery level, it results in a distinctive set of characteristics that can facilitate the identification of the individual accessing a web service.
These data points, in conjunction with a person’s IP address—the unique identifier for internet-connected devices—were previously restricted by Google for use in ad targeting.
Advocates for privacy argue that, unlike cookies, which are small files saved on a user’s device, individuals have limited control over the transmission of fingerprinting data to advertisers.
“By permitting a tracking method that they once deemed incompatible with user control, Google underscores its continued emphasis on profit over privacy,” stated Lena Cohen, a staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
“The same tracking methods that Google asserts are vital for online advertising also put individuals’ sensitive information at risk of exposure to data brokers, surveillance firms, and law enforcement,” she further remarked.
The concept of ‘irresponsible’ change
Pete Wallace, representing the advertising technology firm GumGum, articulates that fingerprinting occupies a somewhat ambiguous position.
“Should individuals feel at ease with a lack of clarity regarding their privacy? I would argue against it,” he states.
GumGum, which has previously collaborated with the BBC on advertising initiatives, employs contextual advertising. This method targets online users based on various data points, such as the keywords present on the websites they visit, rather than relying on personal data.
Mr. Wallace asserts that the acceptance of fingerprinting signifies a notable transformation within the industry.
“Fingerprinting appears to adopt a more business-oriented perspective on consumer data usage, as opposed to a consumer-focused one,” he remarks.
“This kind of inconsistency, in my view, undermines the industry’s progress towards prioritizing consumer privacy.”
He expresses hope that advertising technology firms will recognize “that this is not the suitable method for utilizing consumer data,” although he anticipates they will consider fingerprinting as a means to enhance ad targeting.
Advertising serves as the foundation of the internet’s business model, enabling numerous websites to remain accessible to users without requiring direct payment for access.
In exchange, users frequently relinquish personal information to allow advertisers to present them with relevant advertisements.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in the UK has stated that “fingerprinting is not a fair method for tracking users online, as it is likely to diminish individuals’ choice and control over the collection of their information.”
In a December blog post, Stephen Almond, the ICO’s Executive Director of Regulatory Risk, commented: “We believe this change is irresponsible.”
He further noted that advertisers and businesses opting to implement this technology must demonstrate compliance with data and privacy regulations in the UK.
Advertisers and businesses opting to utilize this technology must demonstrate compliance with data and privacy regulations in the UK, he noted.
“In light of our understanding of the current application of fingerprinting techniques in advertising, this presents a significant challenge,” he stated.
In a statement, Google expressed: “We anticipate engaging in further discussions with the ICO regarding this policy modification.”
“We recognize that data signals, such as IP addresses, are already widely employed by various industry players, and Google has responsibly utilized IP addresses to combat fraud for many years.”
A representative further remarked: “We remain committed to providing users with the option to receive personalized advertisements and will collaborate with the industry to promote responsible data practices.”