All Chrome users will see popups in the coming weeks: here is why
Google is in the final steps of preparing a massive change in its Chrome web browser. Called the Privacy Sandbox by Google, it is an attempt to move tracking on the Internet from the user level to group levels. In the process, Google plans to disable third-parties cookies support in the Chrome web browser.
Internet users who use Google Chrome continue to be tracked when the change lands in the browser. The method is different and Google is sugarcoating the change to make it more agreeable. Google plans to drop support for third-party cookies in Chrome in 2024.
Chrome users who update their web browser to Chrome 115 may see the following popup on the next start.
Google plans to display the popup to all Chrome users eventually, but not at the same time. The popup rolls out to the entire population over the course of weeks or even months. Eventually though, most Chrome users will have seen the popup and reacted to it.
Reacted? Yes, because the popup is not a normal popup that one can dismiss by closing the tab or navigating away. The entire browser is locked when the popup is displayed and will only be unlocked once Chrome users respond to it. Note that it is not even possible to move the Chrome window or resize it. Every action is locked.
This may require clicking on the "more" link and either accepting Privacy Sandbox with a click or tap on the highlighted "got it" button, or a click on the regular Settings button.
Google writes that it is "launching new privacy features" in Chrome that give users of the browser "more choice over the ads" that they see.
There are several of these Privacy Sandbox popups, which are designed for certain regions of the world.
The "Turn on ad privacy feature" popup on the other hand has a "no, thanks" button next to the "turn it on" button in the popup.
The entire system is based on the user's browsing history. Chrome analyzes the browsing history to determine interests and sites may access the data to display personalized ads to Chrome users.
The "Other features that make ads more private" popup is displayed when a Chrome users selects the no option. It emphasizes that the change limits the information that sites may gather about Chrome users and includes just a "got it" option and the link to the Settings.
Then there is "new ads privacy feature now available" popup, which contains a single paragraph of text and just the got it button.
The new Ads privacy settings
Google emphasizes that Chrome users have a say when it comes to these interests. While it is true that Chrome users may manage these on the new Ads Privacy settings page of the browser, available by loading chrome://settings/adPrivacy, most will probably ignore the option or be unaware of it in first place.
Ads Privacy may list the following options when opened in the web browser:
- Ad topics -- Google Chrome displays the identified interests, called topics, when this page is selected. Chrome users may block these and they may also disable the Ad topics feature here.
- Site-suggested ads -- This settings page lists the websites that may identify a user's topics of interests. The feature can be turned off here and sites may be blocked by the user.
- Ad measurement -- The feature allows advertisers and sites to measure the performance of their ads. Chrome users may disable the functionality here.
Google Chrome users may turn off all of the features in the Settings. There is also the option to disable features using Chrome's experimental flags feature.
Privacy Sandbox Ads APIs -- chrome://flags/#privacy-sandbox-ads-apis -- this disables all of the APIs and should also block all of the features from working in the browser.
Privacy Sandbox Settings V4 -- chrome://flags/#privacy-sandbox-settings-4 -- this determines if popups need to be displayed or have been displayed, and whether the Ads privacy settings page is available in Google Chrome.
I have a bug of getting this pop up everything I start chrome, no matter what I answer and even reinstalled chrome, still everytime chrome starts this request pops up and can’t do anything until I’ve clicked two times on it…
This popup everytime I start chrome, and can’t use chrome unless answering it, but no matter what I answer it keeps pop up everytime I start chrome, very annoying, didn’t help shit to reinstall chrome… maybe it’s time to give chrome up..
@BillA, Privacy Badger does little that uBlockOrigin doesn’t do (better).
In its original form, PB learned what to block by watching the behavioir of sites you visited. But since 2020 that has been disabled by default (because https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/10/privacy-badger-changing-protect-you-better ) and now it’s basically a non-configurable blocklist.
And Canvas Blocker provides very limited protection against a very specific form of fingerprinting. It’s not a panacea.
None of these do much about Google tracking built into the Chrome browser, which is what this article is about.
Just install the following three extensions on your desktop Chrome, thank me later. ?
.
Canvas Blocker – Fingerprint Protect
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/canvas-blocker-fingerprin/nomnklagbgmgghhjidfhnoelnjfndfpd
.
Privacy Badger
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/privacy-badger/pkehgijcmpdhfbdbbnkijodmdjhbjlgp
.
uBlockOrigin
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm
@BillA
Privacy Badger is redundant if you already have uBlock Origin. Brave does all of that out of the box for me and its fingerprinting defenses are not limited to just Canvas. Further, your extensions are not stopping the spying Chrome itself does, as @flezgrot has pointed out below. Brave strips out many connections that your browser still establishes to Google:
https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-Chromium-(features-we-disable-or-remove)
Is this both dor Chrome-based abd Firefox-based browsers?
It is remarkable that, if above remark is valid, Privacy Badger has a very high judgement in Firefox and Chrome !! Possibly the given values are with no uBlock Origin installed ?
> Is this both dor Chrome-based abd Firefox-based browsers?
Yes. Privacy Badger is always redundant if you have uBlock Origin. Canvas Blocker should never be used over the native defense of the browser (Brave, Firefox).
> It is remarkable that, if above remark is valid, Privacy Badger has a very high judgement in Firefox and Chrome !! Possibly the given values are with no uBlock Origin installed ?
It has high ratings because it does its job, blocking trackers. But so does uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger is redundant.
“it is an attempt to move tracking on the Internet from the user level to group levels.”
No, it is an attempt to add tracking right inside the browser itself, in addition to keeping lots of it on the web. What you wrote is just Google’s presentation of it.
Besides, I insist on the “web” word instead of “internet”. Lots of internet tracking is happening outside of a browser and won’t be affected at all by the removal of third-party cookies.
“The entire system is based on the user’s browsing history. Chrome analyzes the browsing history to determine interests and sites may access the data to display personalized ads to Chrome users.”
Good old criminal spyware now called a privacy feature. Also already in Firefox in other forms, where it’s opt-out, not even opt-in.
“The new Ads privacy settings”
A pop-up that can’t be dismissed with confusing descriptions of what their spyware actually is is not informed “opt-in”. Usually, when they won’t want us to tick a box, they’ll hide in somewhere in the bowels of the browser and never talk about it.
What kind of description do they give, according to those screenshots ? “Site-suggested ads help protect your browsing history and identity”. No, that’s exactly the opposite of what this does, it’s spying on browsing history to personalize ads to the user. “With ad measurements, limited types of data are shared between sites”. Well, without that shit enabled that data won’t be shared at all ; so how would enabling that make “ads more private” ? They’re trying to psychologically tie the removal of third-party cookies with the enabling of this spyware feature but there is no reason to comply.
The only Chromium-based browser I use is plain unGoogled Chromium.
And that’s only in the rare instances when a site won’t play nice with Firefox (which, in my case = ESR, configured for privacy and my personal taste).
I have tried many fringe browsers over the years, but keep coming back to FF.
“According to Darwin’s Origin of Species, it is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself.”
Natural selection–“Natural selection is the process through which species [browsers] adapt to their environments. It is the engine that drives evolution.” [Competition]
Spencer–any organism, unable to maintain itself, must perish.
Nietzsche–quest for dominance.
No difference between “browser wars” and Nature/Evolution. Obviously, Google Chrome is doing something–“adapting, changing, adjusting”–that enables it to thrive in the current milieu while Firefox hangs on by a sinew.
“Obviously, Google Chrome is doing something–“adapting, changing, adjusting”–that enables it to thrive in the current milieu while Firefox hangs on by a sinew.”
What Google is doing that makes it “thrive” is being a giant surveillance company. Mozilla essentially only develops a spyware browser, so it’s hard to compete, and anyway it’s under Google control.
The question is, is Google “thriving” making *you* thrive ?
@Anonymous–Yes, financially, anyway.
Initial $10,000 investment in GOOG in 2018 is now worth $22,120.14. The rule of thumb in the market is doubling one’s initial investment every seven years.
[Take that to an initial $100,000!]
Rarely do I need Google Chrome, but sometimes Firefox doesn’t render a page correctly.
Edge isn’t too bad.
When I run a simple VPN like Proton, a bit of privacy is protected.
Here’s the “not so good”–I use Google Fi for various reasons, and I hate to think how much data they have from my phone–ouch! Even then, I can use Proton. Helpful.
I will share @VioletMoon’s full comment.
And I also have a “follow-up”.
Gresham’s law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law
Phenomena such as those found in Gresham’s law were known in various places from ancient times before Gresham.
The ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes criticized the Athenian populism of the time, saying, “Just as good money disappears from circulation and bad money comes into circulation, bad people are chosen over good people.”
I am glad that I haven’t used Chrome in years. Google is evil.
So, would this mean goodbye to Sleipner too?
{The entire system is based on the user’s browsing history}
If all history is deleted when Chrome closes, does they mean they will advertise nothing at you!
Well it would still personalize ads until you close the browser but lets just assume that you are using some sort of extension to delete your history after each tab closes (entirely unrealistic since I am certain many of you have multiple tabs open even right now) then I am sure that Google has already considered this and will likely use it’s data centers to profile you based on your history and serve you ads that way too but regardless the manner in which they are allowed access your web history is not good at all.
I wonder how this breaks incognito mode too as I am sure it will somehow.
> I wonder how this breaks incognito mode too as I am sure it will somehow.
There are concerns about “Advertising ID (advertising identifiers)” that automatically assign “user-specific IDs” to make users identifiable via devices.
“Advertising ID” tracks behavior within the app, but by linking it with cookie information that indicates behavior on the browser, it is possible to track more extensively beyond the app.
Apple devices are user opt-in permissions.
In Google, “Google Advertising ID (GAID)” and “Android Advertising ID (AAID)” are known. The reality is in the dark because we always take workarounds such as introducing the “Google Mobile Ads SDK” that can circumvent the regulation of Apple devices and measure advertising data.
appendix:
Targeted advertising
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_advertising#Behavioral_targeting
https://www.ghacks.net/2023/04/03/the-mullvad-browser-a-privacy-focused-browser-designed-to-reduce-your-fingerprint/#comment-4563254
> If all history is deleted when Chrome closes, does they mean they will advertise nothing at you!
I wonder if is that so?
The end user will think that “it should be so” in terms of the theory of good nature.
However, Google is “traditionally and consistently cunning” and cannot be judged at face value.
Google collects personal information not only from Google Chrome, but also from other Google services (Google Search, Google Maps, VirusTotal, Google Drive, Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Translate, Google Lens, YouTube, etc.). It is an open secret that individual profiling management systems have been established (Snowden’s confession), similar to Nazi Germany’s “Stasi”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi
Ostensibly, the temporarily stored activity history in the browser will be cleared from the browser, but in the meantime it will be collected through a combination of techniques such as browser fingerprinting.
So, using the Chrome browser will definitely be personalized (via browser fingerprinting, etc.) and probably, you will see personalized ads every time you use the Chrome browser.
browser fingerprinting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_fingerprint
https://browserleaks.com/
https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
The Nazis had the Gestapo, the Stasi was created later in communist GDR, German Democratic Republic.
@Martin Brinkmann,
Thanks for the correction, Exactly right.
“similar to Nazi Germany’s “Stasi””
You got it backwards, the Stasi is the side that defeated the nazis. In West Germany however after world war 2, the nazis stayed in place at many critical economic and repression functions to go on hunting leftists, like the head of the Federal Intelligence Service Reinhard Gehlen for example, former Wehrmacht general placed there by the CIA, and various Gestapo and SS people.
@Anonymous,
Thanks for pointing that out, Exactly right.
Fingerprinting is one of the reasons I mostly use Brave or Librewolf. When all else fails, Chrome. There is no such thing as a truly private browser. Six here is half a dozen over there. You can improve results but not to the point of perfection. Somehow or other all browsers pay for themselves. If they didn’t, they would not exist.
“Somehow or other all browsers pay for themselves. If they didn’t, they would not exist”
It’s comparatively very cheap in work to remove malware parts from browsers. Librewolf does it for free for example. Those who are paid by search deals to do that small work are only using excuses to justify those privacy hostile deals.
As for the main browsers, they do not have to be paid by surveillance, it’s a choice. Let’s make that choice impossible.
You still get to see ads, but they may not be personalized.
Unless users get annoyed because it breaks web sites. Most won’t care or even notice much. The ideal of privacy on the internet is laughable. Never felt Brave or Firefox was a savior of privacy on the internet. They both just collect data a little differently claiming its better.
Hardly a surprise really. Just another day and another company competing for the biggest scumbag award. I think it goes without saying that Google by virtue of sheer reach and resources and influence is the biggest scumbag. They have their finger in the pie in everything but that doesn’t mean others aren’t scraping the bottom of the barrel as well. This year has made sure there has been plenty of competition.
This move should almost certainly be the death of the browser itself but it won’t be. What should happen is that they should be brought up for misleading people with this smoke screen for starters and then labelled as malware. It’s a blatant lie that this is designed to be privacy measure.
I would say that any fool could see that this is bad, even the most devout chrome user could see that by now.
If you look at Chrome’s market share it shows just how little people care about privacy, security or online safety. Chrome, all of it’s variants, including Brave, and CEF should be relegated to the bowels of hell. But stupidity appeals to the masses and nothing will change.
@yanta,
> Chrome, all of it’s variants, including Brave, and CEF should be relegated to the bowels of hell.
By “CEF” you mentioned, do you mean Chromium Embedded Framework?
Or Chrome, Edge, Firefox?
ghacks is subscribed to by men and women of all ages globally. A secret language can lead to misunderstandings and hate.
I would assume he means Chromium Embedded Framework.
I personally wish Brave had stayed the course when they were based on firefox but I can understand why he went towards chrome. Mozilla cast him out for petty reasons and now we have much worse. I don’t know if there was anything else going on internally but I do feel he was vilified for something petty and completely unrelated to tech.
I’m not really concerned how many people are using Chrome, I mean if people are that ignorant then they can continue to be exploited, watching ads, being tracked, monetized, violated, data mined, exploited and so on but what I do care about is Google asserting itself as the be all and end all of the internet by dictating web standards blocking out other browsers and any hopes or chance of an alternative coming along to compete. How are they really supposed to compete when you have to comply with what google has now dictated to be web standards based on its own design.
The end result is that websites will only be designed to work with one browser only and that is fundamentally wrong and a complete collapse in the structural design of the web.
I also understand the fallacy behind my comment in that the less people that use Google Chrome the better and that it may shift the focus to other browsers but the problem is that Google goes down on a much deeper level. They own Android which means you have and OS that not only comes preinstalled with chrome on its devices but favors it above all else.
The pinheads at Microsoft converting Edge to a chrome clone did not help the situation because businesses and institutes will largely follow Microsoft and use edge which in turn means chromium so that is two dominant forces (Android and Windows) that pushes chrome/chromium as the default standard web browser.
@Martin
I’d like to see you dive into CEF. aka Chrome Embedded Framework.
Steam uses it, Razar uses it, and probably many others. In those two instances it’s basically a chrome browser customized as a GUI window.
“I’d like to see you dive into CEF”
Good catch, interesting what the “opt-in” will look like there, especially when it’s not even the user who will decide.
Move to Brave or Firefox.
The dialogue is disingenuous and dishonest. It says “Turn on ad privacy feature”, however this is NOT a privacy feature. Google is an advertising company that happens to make a browser – it’s about Google’s bottom line and their ability to continue gathering information about users and their interests and browsing behaviour in an era where lawmakers are starting to clamp down on their abusive practices.
Targeted advertising and the associated data collection should be outright banned and only contextual advertising permitted. For-profit organisations cannot be trusted to do the right thing.
@ECJ
Nobody should DIRECTLY support Firefox – OR use a Chromium based browser (at all).
The only acceptable browsers are that one’s here one SHOULD/COULD use=
Floorp
Pulse browser
Seamonkey
Pale Moon
Librewolf (Un-Mozilla’d Firefox)
Waterfox (if you can ignore the fact that it is bought by a commercial company)
And if it REALLY has to be a Mozilla code based browser=
– Change user agent to NOT officially supporting Mozilla
– Turn off telemetry and all the other Mozilla baked trash
Off topic,
Waterfox is independent again.
https://www.waterfox.net/blog/
So no backing of an organisation with money.
@sajadi – >”The only acceptable browsers are that one’s here one SHOULD/COULD use=
Floorp
Pulse browser
Seamonkey
Pale Moon
Librewolf (Un-Mozilla’d Firefox)
Waterfox (if you can ignore the fact that it is bought by a commercial company)”
I use Pale Moon, but I don’t agree with your statement that no one should ever use a chromium based browser or Firefox. Firefox with the Arkenfox user.js is acceptable. And Brave and ungoogled chromium have been tested extensively and found not to phone home private data to Google. I agree that Firefox and Chrome/chromium in their default states appear to be privacy disasters.
Andy Prough
> And Brave and ungoogled chromium have been tested extensively and found not to phone home
Actually, no: we REALLY know that Brave “calls home”: it tells the company the user’s IP, location (determined by GeoIP), browser version, type of device, and time of use (launch, etc.) – which helps identify user behavior patterns.
And you can’t disable it. And in every way tries to bypass attempts to block such calls home.
One can repeat as many times as one wants that this is a concern for user security, but Google calls their behavior exactly the same.
@Andy Prough Official Firefox and supporting that way official Mozilla Chrome imitation fox? You are joking!
Official Firefox is discouraged as already known to Mozilla’s countless anti-user decisions, their radical political activism, wish for censorship, many public relation incidents and in general betraying their old core target user group who enjoyed features, full themes and XUL add-ons out of jealousy to beat Chromium in market share – which did not work out well for them!
And Chromium is discouraged as it is in general a harddisk writing cycle waster.
That much said to official Firefox AND Chromium!
“their radical political activism”
lol, as in censoring for the Pentagon.
@sajadi >”in general betraying their old core target user group who enjoyed features, full themes and XUL add-ons”
Well, none of Floorp, Waterfox, Librewolf or Pulse deal with those issues of Firefox changing to Electolysis at all, so I do not see why you are recommending them based on this comment.
@Andy Prough To clarify… it is of course not Pale Moon.. but Pale Moon similar – as seen from the feauture side of view. The new Floorp 11 Beta is even more like Vivaldi (minus Mail/calendar functions) – also a Pale Moon based on a normal “official Firefox” i never would use, same like i never will make something like Floorp or Waterfox or Pulse browser as main.. but i have no moral problems to use something like that as Backup browser – at least until Mozilla is not screwing them too up beyond repair with killing userchrome.css
@Andy Prough Every of that Mozilla code based browsers is basically Firefox for power users again – aka Pale Moon with a more modern browser engine. That developers undo the damage Mozilla makes to appeal to Chrome users.
XUL has gone lost in Firefox, but this is as close as it can be. And every of that browsers is so much more of worth than normal Firefox.
That developers show, that if Mozilla still would believe in features and customization – aka providing a power user browser – they could restore features in an instant – but we know they won’t as their addiction for Chrom users goes way too deep to be fixed in a lifetime.
@Sajadi You sound mad.
@Sajadi
All the browsers you listed are Mozilla code based browsers. Also I would not recommend Waterfox.
@Anonymous Waterfox is the same way genuine than Floorp or Pulse browser. Testing that one on a highly restricted testing area and i have so far found zero malicious activities.
And yeah, i have only mentioned Mozilla code based browsers as using a Google browser is the worst thing one can do. And as that applies also directly to Mozilla as an organization too, but as there are forks around which are much less negative than everything Google browser ware related, i was only able to recommend them.
Still i wish there would be a fully new browser and fully new engine available. Because in the end my hate for both Google and Mozilla is equally shared.
Thanks @Martin for this well explained article about Google Chrome! Interesting feature! :]
No thanks.
About the only thing i gleaned from this is that google has invented another way to spy on what sites you visit. It will be interesting to see how Brave handles this, although I’m getting sick of them changing its auto updating procedures with each new release, seems impossible to block it now. They are trying way too hard to auto update and I believe something else is going on with brave. Ungoogledchromium will probably just disable these features by default.
“About the only thing i gleaned from this is that google has invented another way to spy on what sites you visit. It will be interesting to see how Brave handles this,”
Brave was built from the very beginning on the central idea of doing what Chrome is doing as described here: having the browser complicit in the spying on the browsing history to display personalized ads, and getting its share in the process. In fact, together with Firefox, they experimented these ideas for Google before they became the standard in the most used browser itself, Chrome.
@Anonymous
> Brave was built from the very beginning on the central idea of doing what Chrome is doing as described here: having the browser complicit in the spying on the browsing history to display personalized ads, and getting its share in the process. In fact, together with Firefox, they experimented these ideas for Google before they became the standard in the most used browser itself, Chrome.
Sorry, but that’s BS. Brave, if you opt into Brave Rewards, downloads a generic list of ads which is the same for all users, and then a locally run algorithm picks ads from the list to display to you, based on the browsing history. None of your data ever leaves your PC in the process. Chrome also analyzes your browsing history, but transmits your interests to any advertiser that may request them. Chrome is actively sharing your interests, Brave does not.
Thinking this through before you start typing can only enhance the quality of gHacks.
@andy
Horse apples, I use all OS. On my Linux box I get same pop up “brave can’t update, reinstall” in top right corner. I use same hosts file in mint as windows. It was all working for years then after last few months something changed. Its pretty sneaky too, haven’t figured out yet what they are doing. I made a ps script, deletes all services, tasks and a bunch of crap out of brave folders that’s unneeded. Really pissing me off. I have a side business and pretty soon here brave is going to disappear off my customers computers as well.
@Anonymous,
> I get same pop up “brave can’t update, reinstall” in top right corner.
Why isn’t Brave updating automatically on Windows?
https://support.brave.com/hc/en-us/articles/360042816611-Why-isn-t-Brave-updating-automatically-on-Windows-
By the way,
I am an iPad user,
but I also use Windows OS occasionally, and I also use “Brave Release (Official Build 64-bit)” on those devices (I have been a user since the first release of Brave).
On my system (currently Windows_NT 10.0 19045), I’ve never seen the symptoms you describe in the past.
As a general rule, I apply browser updates without delay.
>”Horse apples, I use all OS. On my Linux box I get same pop up “brave can’t update, reinstall” in top right corner. I use same hosts file in mint as windows.”
That’s weird, I don’t get that with Brave on Trisquel. Did you install Brave by adding the deb package repo? That’s the way I installed it.
@iron heart
Hosts method doesn’t work anymore, brave keeps changing update methods around and re writing registry keys. The ridiculous popup warning never goes away. I’m watching network traffic now. It’s none of braves business how or when I decide to update my browser, they are trying way too hard to stop people which is weird. I don’t require a babysitter. If I want to risk getting a virus that’s on me.
That’s because you’re using Brave on a toy OS. Use it on something for grownups like a GNU/Linux distro and it won’t do updates behind your back.
Just disable the Brave tasks in task scheduler and put Brave services startup to manual in your services. Not a chance in Hell it auto updates anything after that.
@Anonymous
Brave will have it hard-disabled by default, with no way to enable. As a consequence, Brave users won’t see this pop-up. Chrome users will, but if you use Chrome, joke is already on you.
> They are trying way too hard to auto update and I believe something else is going on with brave.
There is nothing going on. The browser itself is fully open source and the privacy community is keeping a very, very close eye on it. It’s just a really shitty idea not to update a browser – it is one of the prime targets of any hacker trying to intrude into your system.
You can block the update URLs Brave contacts in your router, or in a HOSTS file, but it’s not recommended.