Topics essentially works like this: rather than using cookies to track people around the web and figure out their interests from the sites they visit and the apps they use, websites can ask Chrome directly, via its Topics JavaScript API, what sort of things the user is interested in, and then display ads based on that. Chrome picks these topics of interest from studying the user’s browser history.

Isn’t this completely immoral? They are literally stealing the users private browsing history and uses it to boost their own profits.

  • JohnEdwa@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So this is why they want that browser integrity stuff.
    Without the integrity a change like this would be absolutely wonderful - my ad interests would be “FuckOff” and “Nothing”.

        • GFGJewbacca@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          I somehow doubt that Chromium is safe from this. I would imagine that anything built off of Chrome will have this implemented, because otherwise they’re just “leaving money on the table.”

              • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Already there. Been here since the Netscape Navigator days.

                It’s just that some people want to try the chrome-chromium route before landing in Firefox land.

                • Doc Blaze@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I think the best route for preventing browser fingerprinting is to use multiple browsers for different things. Firefox is of course always the long standing favorite, but chromium has a place on my OS as well.

          • Doc Blaze@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m was more talking about pure ungoogled chromium, as built from scratch or by popular Linux distributions. People that use commercial chromium browsers are already lost causes. Brave alone has more privacy red flags in its short existence than Google has in its over 2 decades.

    • Zerush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Vivaldi had stripped out this crap, it’s good that Chromium is FOSS, anybody can gut it to their like. Apart the Vivaldi History Page is way different from al other Chromium (Calendar view customizable in several formats, stadistics with graphs, not a simple list) since its first versions…

      Vivaldi doesn’t collect your history data. All of this information is strictly private and local to your computer. What you get to see is the kind of data that could be tracked by third parties. Instead of trying to monetize it, we are giving you this data – for your eyes only. With the ability to analyze this information, you can decide if you want to adjust your online behavior or remove certain items from the list.

        • Zerush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wich browser integrity? Because of Chromium? Google already tried this years ago to try to control Chromiums with infinite APIs added to the Chromium code, even with discriminatory browsersniffings, which practically all other Chromium Browsers eliminated just as quickly, Vivaldi the first. Windows on Edge anyway (naturally putting its own Spy APIs in place of these). No trackings or logging by Google in Vivaldi (as long as you do not naturally use Google as a search engine). This is why Google is now trying to gain control through its web services and pages that use them with this WEI DRM, which forces all browsers, no matter what engine, be it Chromium, Firefox Gecko or Safari WebKit, to include a “security” Google Token in your script to access these pages or services. This is naturally a huge bummer if not avoided, since then it depends only on Google which browser deserves this Token, which could be the end of all minority browsers, leaving in the end only Chrome itself with full internet access. THAT is the problem, not the browser integrity.

    • hottari@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      50
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nothing. It’s only the tin-foil hatters that care about privacy because the normal people have nothing to hide.

  • Z3k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What is it with Americans naming things the exact opposite of what the thing does

    Does not foes

    • danielbln@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Here are some more candidates:

      1. FREEDOM: Full Range Enhanced Experience Derived Online Marketing.
      2. LIBERTY: Leveraging Internet Browsing & Experience Records To Yield profits.
      3. JUSTICE: Join Users’ Surfing Trends for Intelligent Commercial Engagement.
      4. PRIDE: Personalized Recommendations from Internet Data & Exploration.
      5. HONOR: History-Oriented Network for Optimal Recommendations.
      • Hello Hotel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        These are fun:

        1. TRUST: Telemarketing Reliability Using Safety Technology (abuse of safety systems)
        2. HOPE: Helpful Online Personalization Engine (literally just adware)
        3. TRUST: Tracking Retail Usage Systems Technology (amazon spying)
        4. LIBRE: Liberating Inconvienenced Beings of Repour Emails (gmail reading emails from your friends)
    • 1984@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is incorrect. A user who uses chrome but uses another search engine and blocks cookies and tracking scripts is not providing Google with information about what they are doing online.

      With the topics api, Google reads your actual browsing history which is incredibly private information that they have no right to look at whatsoever.

      I don’t know what world you are living in when you think Google wants to desperately stop third common cookies and other means of tracking - Google is an ad company!

      The internet not wanting to pay for Google services sounds like a Google problem, not a problem for the users. Google doesn’t have some universal right to exist and be preditory to it’s users.

      If they can’t sell their services, they should get off the internet instead of surviving by invading their users privacy and offering “free” services. Fuck Google.

  • socsa@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    To be fair, they immediately give the option to disable it.

    • I’m all for local topic analysis to replace tracking, but they did intentionally use confusing language to trick users into not opting out.

      If you’re going to make something opt-out, at least be honest about it. I fully understand why they went the opt-out route, but they didn’t need to be so slimy about it.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    They’re not stealing browser history. The site requests a list of topics and Chrome parses them based on the local history and returns a list of topics.

    It’s more secure and private than third party cookies.

    • Klame@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The technique they use does not really change to the issue.

      It’s also not necessarily more secure than third party cookies like you claim? You can refuse those cookies and not all website use them, while all website ends up in browsing history.

      • ShrimpsIsBugs@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I might be wrong but as far as I understand Google’s topics API only gives websites access to information like “here is a user who likes the topics IT and gardening”, which is a LOT less than what is possible with cookies. With cookies a website can get information like “here is a user who visited your website yesterday and two times last week. Also they recently visited websites A, B and C, and frequently visits website D. On website D they are logged in as X.” They make all your visits to a website and, with third-party cookies, also to other websites connectable. Google’s topics do not.

      • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        But the website doesn’t end up with your browsing history…

        And you can opt out of this just like you can opt out of third party cookies.

        • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I would like to watch you opt out of all this every single time you sit down in the next class of your education institute or workplace.

        • uneronumo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, they merely created the technology that watches everything you do. You can opt out! No worries! This certainly isn’t anything to worry about! They will definitely continue to let you opt out indefinitely. History tells me that that’s how this works.

    • Stephen304@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The way I see it, that’s just browser history exfiltration with extra steps. Whether they’re sending the actual history or parsing your history and sending topics, both are equally as objectionable to me as both could reveal information about something private you’ve been visiting.

  • hottari@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Am all for this move if it makes Google drop third-party cookies tomorrow.