Slashdot Mirror
Google Secretly Logs Users Into Chrome Whenever They Log Into a Google Site (zdnet.com)
Catalin Cimpanu, writing for ZDNet: Starting with Chrome 69, whenever a Chrome user would access a Google-owned site, the browser would take that user's Google identity and log the user into the Chrome in-browser account system -- also known as Sync. This system, Sync, allows users to log in with their Google accounts inside Chrome and optionally upload and synchronize local browser data (history, passwords, bookmarks, and other) to Google's servers. Sync has been present in Chrome for years, but until now, the system worked independently from the logged-in state of Google accounts. This allowed users to surf the web while logged into a Google account but not upload any Chrome browsing data to Google's servers, data that may be tied to their accounts.
Now, with the revelations of this new auto-login mechanism, a large number of users are angry that this sneaky modification would allow Google to link that person's traffic to a specific browser and device with a higher degree of accuracy. That criticism proved to be wrong, as Google engineers have clarified on Twitter that this auto-login operation does not start the process of synchronizing local data to Google's servers, which will require a user click. Furthermore, they also revealed that the reason why this mechanism was added was for privacy reasons in the first place. Chrome engineers said the auto-login mechanism was added in the browser because of shared computers/browsers. Well-respected cryptographer Matthew Green was disappointed by the move. In a post, he wrote: [...] In the rest of this post, I'm going to talk about why this matters. From my perspective, this comes down to basically four points:
1. Nobody on the Chrome development team can provide a clear rationale for why this change was necessary, and the explanations they've given don't make any sense.
2. This change has enormous implications for user privacy and trust, and Google seems unable to grapple with this.
3. The change makes a hash out of Google's own privacy policies for Chrome.
4. Google needs to stop treating customer trust like it's a renewable resource, because they're screwing up badly.
Now, with the revelations of this new auto-login mechanism, a large number of users are angry that this sneaky modification would allow Google to link that person's traffic to a specific browser and device with a higher degree of accuracy. That criticism proved to be wrong, as Google engineers have clarified on Twitter that this auto-login operation does not start the process of synchronizing local data to Google's servers, which will require a user click. Furthermore, they also revealed that the reason why this mechanism was added was for privacy reasons in the first place. Chrome engineers said the auto-login mechanism was added in the browser because of shared computers/browsers. Well-respected cryptographer Matthew Green was disappointed by the move. In a post, he wrote: [...] In the rest of this post, I'm going to talk about why this matters. From my perspective, this comes down to basically four points:
1. Nobody on the Chrome development team can provide a clear rationale for why this change was necessary, and the explanations they've given don't make any sense.
2. This change has enormous implications for user privacy and trust, and Google seems unable to grapple with this.
3. The change makes a hash out of Google's own privacy policies for Chrome.
4. Google needs to stop treating customer trust like it's a renewable resource, because they're screwing up badly.
>vulnerable private property is still private
You clicked Agree.
This fight isn't on legal or even moral grounds anymore. And privacy isn't a binary condition - you're up against ten-thousand services and a million databases, hundreds of different forms of hoover/pipe/fingerprint/metric acquisition.
It's like you're bitching about a specific strain of disease. You wash your hands and avoid rotten food as general defenses, not targeted ones. Even those of us with "special tools" aren't immune, we're only reducing our exposure.
This is why people that say "X can still track you" or "Y doesn't work on Z" are dumbasses. You still wash your hands, and you still employ whatever methods are appropriate at your particular user knowledge/armory.
You can't uninvent technology. And the copyright mafiaa's are evidence that you can't legislate it away, even with deep pockets and influence. I'll fight on the social front on principal, but with the assumption of failure, i.e. I'm left to defending myself personally. See also: A future full of LPR, facerec, and more.
Good luck bitching away those last ones.