|Report: Google Looks At New Ad Tracking ID, AdID, To Replace Cookies|
| 9:23 am on Sep 18, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Interesting idea, however, a worrying trend as it continues to bring more control into its own ecosystem. imho.
|Google, which accounts for about a third of worldwide online ad revenue, is developing an anonymous identifier for advertising, or AdID, that would replace third-party cookies as the way advertisers track people's Internet browsing activity for marketing purposes, according to a person familiar with the plan. |
The AdID would be transmitted to advertisers and ad networks that have agreed to basic guidelines, giving consumers more privacy and control over how they browse the Web, the person said, on condition of anonymity.
The person did not want to be identified because Google has not made the proposal public...Report: Google Looks At New Ad Tracking ID, AdID, To Replace Cookies [usatoday.com]
| 10:06 am on Sep 18, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|giving consumers more privacy and control over how they browse the Web |
Well there's an oxymoron...
"Privacy", "control" to browse the web being handed over to G - good grief.
| 12:05 pm on Sep 18, 2013 (gmt 0)|
This has something to do with avoiding the effects of the DNT header without getting caught flagrantly ignoring it, right?
| 2:06 pm on Sep 18, 2013 (gmt 0)|
it's too bad usa today was the source for that story.
pure smoke and mirrors - i didn't read anything about what protocol this magic AdID uses.
| 9:29 pm on Sep 18, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|Google, which accounts for about a third of worldwide online ad revenue |
Google certainly did not get this wealthy by giving users more privacy. I highly doubt anything they come up with will give people anymore privacy. If anything, it would give Google more data and control over that data.
| 9:41 pm on Sep 18, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|it's too bad usa today was the source for that story. |
They seem to be the only source. Look it up and you'll find zillions of other articles-- all naming USA Today as their own source. I guess you could fine-tooth-comb the others and see if anyone mentions anything that wasn't part of the USA Today article.
There's a 20-second snippet on YouTube but I can't find its source, if in fact there is one. (Query: How can a search engine index something that exists only as an audio track?)
Why the ### would they divulge something this significant to USA Today and nobody else? How can anyone be sure they're not simply making it up? Or that some vague suggestion of the idea came up in water-cooler blahblah at google, and USA Today's paid source raced to call it in on the off chance it might come true in 2015?
If you constrain your search to google dot com you come up cold, barring google+ retweets. Or, uh, whatever they're called. Yes, I tried That Other Search Engine too ;)
| 3:53 pm on Sep 19, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Good catch, lucy24. It really bugs me when every "source" I find on a story tracks back to one single source. When that source's source is anonymous... well, I know it MIGHT be true, but it could also easily be wrong or even disinformation. Who knows who told them this?
| 12:30 pm on Oct 11, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|NSA documents published by the Guardian earlier this month appear to postulate that cookies set by the pervasive Google-owned ad network DoubleClick could be used to spot internet users who also use the Tor anonymity system. |