Google’s latest decision on online tracking has sparked backlash from privacy advocates, who argue that the move undermines user protection. The update, set to take effect on Sunday, enables advertisers to gather detailed information through a technique called fingerprinting. This method compiles signals from devices and browsers, such as network details and hardware specifics, allowing advertisers to build distinctive user profiles. Critics believe this change significantly reduces individual control over how personal information is accessed and utilized.
Google maintains that similar tracking mechanisms are already standard within the industry, asserting that it continues to promote ethical data usage. However, this policy shift contradicts its prior stance. In 2019, the company had denounced fingerprinting as a way to bypass user choice, calling it an unfair practice.
Explaining its reasoning, Google states that the way people interact with digital platforms has evolved, particularly through smart TVs, gaming systems, and other internet-connected devices. It argues that conventional tracking tools like cookies, which users can manage through permission settings, are becoming less effective. The company claims its new approach improves security while allowing businesses to navigate emerging digital spaces without compromising privacy.
Opponents argue that the policy grants Google and the broader advertising sector unchecked power over tracking methods that users cannot easily avoid. Martin Thomson, a lead engineer at Mozilla, warns that fingerprinting expands Google’s influence in targeted advertising, eroding privacy safeguards in the process. Unlike cookies, which can be blocked or deleted, fingerprinting works passively in the background, leaving individuals with limited options to prevent tracking.
This data collection method pulls information such as screen dimensions and language preferences, which are necessary for optimizing website displays. However, when merged with details like time zone, power status, and browser specifics, these factors form an identifiable pattern, making it easier to recognize and track individuals across the web. Previously, Google had blocked advertisers from using IP addresses for targeted marketing, but this new policy change removes that restriction, raising concerns among privacy-focused groups.
Lena Cohen, a technology specialist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, believes this decision signals Google's prioritization of financial interests over consumer protection. She warns that while the company presents fingerprinting as a necessary tool for digital advertising, it also increases exposure to third-party entities such as data brokers, surveillance firms, and law enforcement agencies. Privacy activists argue that fingerprinting strips individuals of meaningful control, making it significantly harder to manage their online footprint.
Even within the advertising sector, some professionals question the ethical impact of this change. Pete Wallace, an executive at advertising technology firm GumGum, describes fingerprinting as an ambiguous practice that operates in a regulatory gray area. He suggests that the industry was gradually shifting toward stronger privacy safeguards, making this policy reversal concerning. His company, which has collaborated with major media organizations on advertising strategies, instead relies on contextual marketing, an approach that analyzes webpage content rather than tracking user-specific data. He believes Google’s decision shifts the balance of power in advertising, favoring corporate data collection over individual privacy. While he hopes businesses recognize the risks associated with fingerprinting, he anticipates that many will adopt the technique to refine their ad targeting strategies.
Online advertising remains the backbone of the internet’s economic structure, allowing platforms to offer free access to content. However, this business model often forces users to relinquish privacy in exchange for digital services. Regulators have started paying closer attention, with the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) voicing concerns about the impact of fingerprinting on consumer autonomy. The agency warns that fingerprinting severely restricts user choice while diminishing transparency regarding data collection practices.
Stephen Almond, a senior official at the ICO, has criticized the move as irresponsible, stating that advertisers must now prove how fingerprinting complies with legal data protection requirements. He argues that this approach contradicts broader efforts to enhance user privacy, placing greater responsibility on businesses to justify their tracking practices.
In response to the criticism, Google reaffirmed its commitment to discussions with regulators, including the ICO. The company insists that data signals such as IP addresses have long been utilized within the industry and asserts that its implementation remains controlled, particularly in fraud prevention. Google maintains that individuals still have a say in whether they receive customized advertisements and emphasizes its intention to encourage ethical data handling across the sector.
Image: DIW-Aigen
Read next:
• Meta’s AI Studio Sparks Concern Over Hyper-Sexualized and Minor-Resembling AI Characters
Google maintains that similar tracking mechanisms are already standard within the industry, asserting that it continues to promote ethical data usage. However, this policy shift contradicts its prior stance. In 2019, the company had denounced fingerprinting as a way to bypass user choice, calling it an unfair practice.
Explaining its reasoning, Google states that the way people interact with digital platforms has evolved, particularly through smart TVs, gaming systems, and other internet-connected devices. It argues that conventional tracking tools like cookies, which users can manage through permission settings, are becoming less effective. The company claims its new approach improves security while allowing businesses to navigate emerging digital spaces without compromising privacy.
Opponents argue that the policy grants Google and the broader advertising sector unchecked power over tracking methods that users cannot easily avoid. Martin Thomson, a lead engineer at Mozilla, warns that fingerprinting expands Google’s influence in targeted advertising, eroding privacy safeguards in the process. Unlike cookies, which can be blocked or deleted, fingerprinting works passively in the background, leaving individuals with limited options to prevent tracking.
This data collection method pulls information such as screen dimensions and language preferences, which are necessary for optimizing website displays. However, when merged with details like time zone, power status, and browser specifics, these factors form an identifiable pattern, making it easier to recognize and track individuals across the web. Previously, Google had blocked advertisers from using IP addresses for targeted marketing, but this new policy change removes that restriction, raising concerns among privacy-focused groups.
Lena Cohen, a technology specialist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, believes this decision signals Google's prioritization of financial interests over consumer protection. She warns that while the company presents fingerprinting as a necessary tool for digital advertising, it also increases exposure to third-party entities such as data brokers, surveillance firms, and law enforcement agencies. Privacy activists argue that fingerprinting strips individuals of meaningful control, making it significantly harder to manage their online footprint.
Even within the advertising sector, some professionals question the ethical impact of this change. Pete Wallace, an executive at advertising technology firm GumGum, describes fingerprinting as an ambiguous practice that operates in a regulatory gray area. He suggests that the industry was gradually shifting toward stronger privacy safeguards, making this policy reversal concerning. His company, which has collaborated with major media organizations on advertising strategies, instead relies on contextual marketing, an approach that analyzes webpage content rather than tracking user-specific data. He believes Google’s decision shifts the balance of power in advertising, favoring corporate data collection over individual privacy. While he hopes businesses recognize the risks associated with fingerprinting, he anticipates that many will adopt the technique to refine their ad targeting strategies.
Online advertising remains the backbone of the internet’s economic structure, allowing platforms to offer free access to content. However, this business model often forces users to relinquish privacy in exchange for digital services. Regulators have started paying closer attention, with the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) voicing concerns about the impact of fingerprinting on consumer autonomy. The agency warns that fingerprinting severely restricts user choice while diminishing transparency regarding data collection practices.
Stephen Almond, a senior official at the ICO, has criticized the move as irresponsible, stating that advertisers must now prove how fingerprinting complies with legal data protection requirements. He argues that this approach contradicts broader efforts to enhance user privacy, placing greater responsibility on businesses to justify their tracking practices.
In response to the criticism, Google reaffirmed its commitment to discussions with regulators, including the ICO. The company insists that data signals such as IP addresses have long been utilized within the industry and asserts that its implementation remains controlled, particularly in fraud prevention. Google maintains that individuals still have a say in whether they receive customized advertisements and emphasizes its intention to encourage ethical data handling across the sector.
Image: DIW-Aigen
Read next:
• Meta’s AI Studio Sparks Concern Over Hyper-Sexualized and Minor-Resembling AI Characters
