How Sketchy Data Scavengers Are Using Hatred Of 'Big Tech' To Attack Plans To Make The Web More Private

from the be-careful-what-you-wish-for dept

We warned that this was likely back when Google announced plans to phase out third-party cookies in Chrome (something all the other major browser makers had already done): that this would be used to attack Google as being anti-competitive, even as it was pro-privacy. Privacy and competition do not need to be in conflict, but they can be. And what's happening now is that more sketchy ad companies are abusing the constant drumbeat and fear over "Big Tech" to attack privacy protections -- but that behind the scenes story is getting missed as people are more focused on more breaking news about how Google has decided to push back its move on 3rd party cookies for two more years.

Issie Lapowsky, over at Protocol, has a must read story on how sketchy ad and data brokers have crashed the W3C, riding a wave of anti-big tech feelings to push for worse solutions for everyone as it comes to privacy (of course, Facebook is on the wrong side of this as well -- it's basically all the sketchy companies and Facebook against all the other companies). It's quite a story.

On one side are engineers who build browsers at Apple, Google, Mozilla, Brave and Microsoft. These companies are frequent competitors that have come to embrace web privacy on drastically different timelines. But they've all heard the call of both global regulators and their own users, and are turning to the W3C to develop new privacy-protective standards to replace the tracking techniques businesses have long relied on.

On the other side are companies that use cross-site tracking for things like website optimization and advertising, and are fighting for their industry's very survival. That includes small firms like Rosewell's, but also giants of the industry, like Facebook.

Much of the story focuses on James Rosewell, who runs a "data analytics" company, and joined the W3C apparently just to throw a wrench in any real effort to beef up privacy protections as a core element of the internet.

Rosewell has become one of this side's most committed foot soldiers since he joined the W3C last April. Where Facebook's developers can only offer cautious edits to Apple and Google's privacy proposals, knowing full well that every exchange within the W3C is part of the public record, Rosewell is decidedly less constrained. On any given day, you can find him in groups dedicated to privacy or web advertising, diving into conversations about new standards browsers are considering.

Rather than asking technical questions about how to make browsers' privacy specifications work better, he often asks philosophical ones, like whether anyone really wants their browser making certain privacy decisions for them at all. He's filled the W3C's forums with concerns about its underlying procedures, sometimes a dozen at a time, and has called upon the W3C's leadership to more clearly articulate the values for which the organization stands.

His exchanges with other members of the group tend to have the flavor of Hamilton and Burr's last letters — overly polite, but pulsing with contempt. "I prioritize clarity over social harmony," Rosewell said.

Rosewell and his companions are leaning hard on the idea that if privacy is actually protected, then only Google, Apple, and Microsoft will control the internet. But that's bullshit -- and thankfully, the privacy-focused browser Brave has people willing to call it out as such:

"They use cynical terms like: 'We're here to protect user choice' or 'We're here to protect the open web' or, frankly, horseshit like this," said Pete Snyder, director of privacy at Brave, which makes an anti-tracking browser. "They're there to slow down privacy protections that the browsers are creating."

The article also notes that these more sketchy data brokers (and Facebook) are not just looking to derail the more privacy protective approaches of the browser makers, but to create new standards that would enshrine the surveillance aspect of the web. And, again, they're playing on the general sentiment against "big tech" to try to push that across.

That's only the beginning of the article, it then goes into great detail on the history here (including the fight over "Do Not Track"), and how Rosewell and his colleagues are trying to throw sand in the gears of the W3C to basically wipe out any real movement towards better standards on privacy. And also how Facebook is quietly cheering on Rosewell and folks.

It may sound like a boring and wonky discussion, but it's hugely important for understand the future of the open internet and privacy, and how competition questions are impacted by these things. All of this is important, but the various things -- privacy, competition, content moderation, etc -- are often looked at as separate buckets. But bad choices in one will inevitably impact the others as well. For those who care about privacy online, this story (which goes into a lot more detail) is a must read.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 3rd party cookies, data brokers, privacy, standards, tracking, web browsing
Companies: apple, facebook, google, w3c


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread


  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 2:37pm

    'We're here to protect user choice'

    Okay, then make allowing to be tracked opt-in.
    Problem solved.

    Of course he'll hate this idea and scream more, but you make a buck gathering up little bits of data and creeping people out.
    You claim users get great benefits... name 10.

    Perhaps you could learn from the past, I said could I know humans can't learn from their past, read the writing on the wall.
    Ask horsewhip, buggy makers, ice men, pony express riders, lamp lighters, RIAA execs.... the world will change if you want it to or not.
    You can waste energy & money trying to fight the future or embrace that change is coming using that energy & money to find a new path forward. Maybe develop less intrusive tactics & guidelines so the worst of the worst of your industry is frozen out.

    I look forward to watching you flail in the tarpit...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Glenn, 15 Jul 2021 @ 3:35pm

    Google et al are "big" because people chose to use them. Lots of people. Millions upon millions of people by orders of magnitude. Loud and vocal critics complain about privacy, which is something they never really had anyway; they apparently don't know what "privacy" is (as they freely make all of their "private" info available on the Internet). To them I say, be careful what you scream for... you might just get it -- and they you'll really have something to scream about.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Bobvious, 15 Jul 2021 @ 3:41pm

    History repeating

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 15 Jul 2021 @ 5:47pm

    Fear big tech, fear vaccines! Elon, take me to Mars, to escape the problems here on earth!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 7:07pm

    I just don't get the W3C anymore. Why is one or two assholes even a problem?

    "I prioritize clarity over social harmony," Rosewell said.

    No one gives a fuck what you personally prioritize. Who the hell even are you? Who sent you?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 8:14pm

    he often asks philosophical ones, like whether anyone really wants their browser making certain privacy decisions for them at all.

    Would you rather have control your browser's privacy responses, or have shady brokers like Roswell have the keys to your identity?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2021 @ 8:57pm

    FUD

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Lostinlodos (profile), 15 Jul 2021 @ 11:16pm

    Privacy

    Privacy is all well and good for those that want it.

    Just remember not everyone agrees. So as long as those of us who enjoy relevant targeting still have the option, …!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2021 @ 6:04am

    it's not just 'Sketchy Data Scavengers' that are doing this! everyone under whichever title you wanna give is doing this! and it's main reason for doing it is to keep those people etc private and remove privacy and freedom from the ordinary people! we are not allowed to have any sort of private life, have any sort of private conversation, any sort of internet freedom where we can look at whatever we want without companies tracking our every key stroke and mouse click! and surveillance of all sorts is becoming ever more rampant. there soon wont be courts because all the police will need is to look at a part of a video, showing part of what happened and the party concerned will be convicted immediately with no chance of an appeal!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    SocraticGadfly, 25 Jul 2021 @ 12:51pm

    The "privacy focused browser" Brave? The one of cryptocurrency referral shame? Or, another "Brave" that is magically different?

    It's focking büllshite to call Brave a "privacy browser." Even after apology, I wouldn't trust it.

    https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/06/07/brave-browser-caught-adding-its-own-referral-codes-to-some -cryptcurrency-trading-sites/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Lostinlodos (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 2:31pm

      Re:

      You act like the majority of the users are using it for privacy.
      The basic token is the primary use factor.
      It may be ‘marketed’ as privacy centric, and it is better than many on that; the current high use comes from those of use who turn on advertising and get paid foe looking.

      With tracking enabled (under advanced) you get directed adverts so your technically also being paid for shopping as well.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories
.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.