Skip to main content

Chrome is ditching third-party cookies because Google wants your data all to itself

In January, Google announced its Chrome browser would begin phasing out support for third-party cookies. Chrome is by far the most popular browser in the world, and its elimination of cookies will effectively kill off this key advertising and data-tracking tool for good.

While this looks like a win for privacy on some level, what happens next could end up being much worse for everyone’s privacy, said Elizabeth Renieris, a fellow at the Harvard Berkman Klein center and a data protection and privacy lawyer.

“They’re not really changing underlying tactics [of how they track us], they’re just channeling it all through Google,” Renieris told Digital Trends. “How privacy-preserving is this, actually? What’s Google’s motivation for doing this? Is it to preserve privacy? Potentially, but probably not.”

“We should always be suspicious about Google/Alphabet’s moves to consolidate and de-platform technologies like cookies,” said Christopher Chan, director of content at Cut.com to Digital Trends. “At least we knew how cookies worked. Instead, Google will shore up its surveillance power with even less oversight and accountability, black-boxed behind its proprietary technology. Not good news at all.”

How the cookie crumbles

Third-party cookies are little bits of code that websites place onto our computer hard drives. These track our movements around the web and are helpful for advertisers to target customers. But as a multitude of data leaks and privacy scandals have given the public a view into exactly how much data is collected, often non-consensually, this advertising method now has a bit of a stink about it.

The advertising industry, to its credit, seems to have seen this coming. In 2012, the Interactive Advertising Bureau gave a presentation in which it declared that “the cookie was crumbling.” This piece of web architecture had become essential to advertisers, but had only ever been intended for temporary storage, and the whole model was broken for everyone involved. The speakers also noted that the practice of data collection was “widely fragmented” — including if someone wanted to opt-out of being tracked — and could cause “anxiety and lack of trust” on the consumer side.

Renieris confirmed that cookie tracking is still very fragmented: there are a lot of black boxes, false impressions, and fraud, she said. Mobile tracking is different than browser tracking, and a lot gets lost in translation right now. “The downside to this is that it’s hard to trace who has your data,” she said. The upside though, is no one really has a full picture of who you are. A consumer’s privacy is accidentally protected in this way.

That could all change when Google takes over everything about tracking web movements. Now, everything will have to go through Google. This will certainly solve the issue third-party trackers currently have of being an opaque, haphazard and broken infrastructure that makes it difficult to tell who has the data and where it’s going. Now it’s extremely clear who has all the data: Google will.

This means Google will now have full functional, filled out profiles on every single movement and purchase that every one of its billions of users makes across the internet.

“The first thing we do when we sign up for a platform is sign away all of our rights under the terms of service,” said Chan. “The mode of production for Google and Facebook is to just hoard as much data as possible with idea that it’s worth something in the future.”

“Tacking is one of the biggest threats to privacy,” Renieris said. “This just feels like they’re repurposing and repackaging cookies.”

Attempts at privacy

In August 2019, Google announced a “Privacy Sandbox”: an initiative the company said was aimed at developing “open standards to fundamentally enhance privacy on the web,” and argued that third-party cookies were only one part of the problem.

“This is our strategy to re-architect the standards of the web, to make it privacy-preserving by default,” Justin Schuh, Google’s director for Chrome engineering, told TechCrunch when the announcement hit. “There’s been a lot of focus around third-party cookies, and that certainly is one of the tracking mechanisms, but that’s just a tracking mechanism and we’re calling it out because it’s the one that people are paying attention to.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation quickly called this out, calling it “privacy gaslighting,” and coming down firmly on the side of banishing third-party cookies. Google announced it would be doing so in January.

In a statement to Digital Trends, the U.K.-based ProPrivacy called Google’s announcement “a win for digital privacy,” but said that consumers would still be better off taking their privacy into their own hands. “It is worth noting that while blocking third-party cookies from within Chrome will improve privacy for consumers, it will not prevent Google from tracking users and serving them adverts,” wrote Ray Walsh, digital privacy expert. “As a result, it is likely that Google’s decision will ultimately allow the tech giant to further monopolize the advertising market, forcing more advertisers to come through it directly.”

It is this monopoly that Renieris said she’s concerned about: Europe is currently litigating “in the direction” of making cookie-tracking companies reveal what’s in their black boxes. Google, she surmised, is simply trying to get ahead of this by eliminating the black boxes entirely.

“When Google announced privacy sandbox, they didn’t frame it in terms of individual privacy,” she said. “They framed it in terms of the ad ecosystem.”

If it’s clear that Google is responsible, and they genuinely are a privacy preserving company and business, that’s good, Renieris said. But, “There’s good reason to be skeptical.”

Editors' Recommendations

Maya Shwayder
I'm a multimedia journalist currently based in New England. I previously worked for DW News/Deutsche Welle as an anchor and…
How Intel and Microsoft are teaming up to take on Apple
An Intel Meteor Lake system-on-a-chip.

It seems like Apple might need to watch out, because Intel and Microsoft are coming for it after the latter two companies reportedly forged a close partnership during the development of Intel Lunar Lake chips. Lunar Lake refers to Intel's upcoming generation of mobile processors that are aimed specifically at the thin and light segment. While the specs are said to be fairly modest, some signs hint that Lunar Lake may have enough of an advantage to pose a threat to some of the best processors.

Today's round of Intel Lunar Lake leaks comes from Igor's Lab. The system-on-a-chip (SoC), pictured above, is Intel's low-power solution made for thin laptops that's said to be coming out later this year. Curiously, the chips weren't manufactured on Intel's own process, but on TSMC's N3B node. This is an interesting development because Intel typically sticks to its own fabs, and it even plans to sell its manufacturing services to rivals like AMD. This time, however, Intel opted for the N3B node for its compute tile.

Read more
How much does an AI supercomputer cost? Try $100 billion
A Microsoft datacenter.

It looks like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Sora, among other projects, are about to get a lot more juice. According to a new report shared by The Information, Microsoft and OpenAI are working on a new data center project, one part of which will be a massive AI supercomputer dubbed "Stargate." Microsoft is said to be footing the bill, and the cost is astronomical as the name of the supercomputer suggests -- the whole project might cost over $100 billion.

Spending over $100 billion on anything is mind-blowing, but when put into perspective, the price truly shows just how big a venture this might be: The Information claims that the new Microsoft and OpenAI joint project might cost a whopping 100 times more than some of the largest data centers currently in operation.

Read more
There’s an unexpected, new competitor in PC gaming
Snapdragon's X Elite PC SoC.

Windows gaming on ARM is becoming a legitimate possibility, and it's not just thanks to the recently unveiled emulation options, but it's chiefly due to the fact that Qualcomm's Snapdragon X Elite is shaping up to be pretty excellent. Spotted in a recent benchmark, the CPU was seen beating some of the best processors on the current market. Are we finally at a point where it's not always going to be a choice between just Intel and AMD?

The benchmarks were posted by user @techinmul on Twitter, and the results couldn't be more promising for the upcoming Qualcomm processor. The chip was tested in Geekbench 6, and although it's important not to take these results entirely at face value, it's an impressive show of performance that bodes well for upcoming thin and light laptops.

Read more