In a controversial move set to take effect on Sunday, Google has announced new rules allowing online advertisers to utilize "fingerprinting," a method that collects comprehensive data about users, including their IP addresses and specifics about their devices. This decision has sparked a strong reaction from privacy advocates, who view it as a blatant intrusion on user privacy.
Privacy campaigners assert that the changes represent a serious deviation from Google’s earlier commitments to protect user data. Just four years ago, Google publicly condemned fingerprinting, describing it as a method that "subverts user choice" and is inherently wrong. However, the company has now suggested that evolving internet usage—such as the rise of smart TVs and gaming consoles—necessitates this new approach, which increases the difficulty of targeting advertisements based on traditional consent-driven methods like cookies.
Despite Google's assertions that the updates enhance privacy protections, critics, including Martin Thomson, a distinguished engineer at Mozilla, argue that allowing fingerprinting essentially grants permission for deeper tracking methods that users cannot easily control. "By allowing fingerprinting, Google has given itself—and the advertising industry it leads—an avenue for tracking that users cannot readily evade," Thomson stated.
Fingerprinting refers to the practice of compiling a distinctive profile based on a user's device and browser attributes. It combines seemingly innocuous information—such as language settings with battery levels or screen size—to create a unique identifier that aids advertisers in targeting specific audiences. While Google previously prohibited the use of fingerprinting information for ad targeting, the change now opens the door to its widespread usage, prompting fierce criticism.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Lena Cohen emphasized that the new policy undermines user privacy protections, allowing sensitive information to be accessed by data brokers and law enforcement, and marking a troubling shift in Google's priorities.
Pete Wallace of advertising tech firm GumGum criticized the move as a departure from putting consumer privacy first, arguing that it represents a business-centric approach at the cost of user comfort and safety. The overall industry might feel pressured to adopt fingerprinting for enhanced targeting potential, further complicating the landscape of digital privacy.
In response to the backlash, the UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has warned that fingerprinting falls short of ethical tracking standards, diminishing users' control over their personal information. They describe the change as "irresponsible," and stress that advertisers must uphold stringent data compliance if they pursue such techniques.
Google, however, has expressed its intent to work closely with the ICO to clarify the implications of the new policy, stating that IP addresses and associated signals have long been utilized responsibly to combat fraud within the industry. The search giant insists that users retain the power to opt for personalized ads and remains committed to fostering responsible data practices across the advertising ecosystem.
