谷歌、微软、Meta 即使您选择退出,仍然在追踪您。
Google, Microsoft, Meta All Tracking You Even When You Opt Out

原始链接: https://www.404media.co/google-microsoft-meta-all-tracking-you-even-when-you-opt-out-according-to-an-independent-audit/

最近,WebXray进行的一项独立审计,调查了超过7000个加州网站的网络流量,发现微软、Meta和谷歌可能存在隐私违规行为,可能导致根据《加州消费者隐私法》(CCPA) 处以数十亿美元的罚款。审计显示,55%的网站即使在用户通过“全球隐私控制”(GPC)等工具选择退出跟踪后,仍继续设置广告Cookie。 具体而言,谷歌有87%的时间未能尊重退出请求,Meta为69%,微软为50%。审计指出,这些公司在处理GPC信号方面存在缺陷,以及谷歌认证的“同意管理平台”(CMP)存在问题,这些平台经常未能阻止设置Cookie,即使在用户选择退出请求的情况下。 WebXray由一位前谷歌隐私政策负责人创立,认为这些公司将利润置于合规之上,并将罚款视为经营成本。他们建议一个简单的代码修复就可以解决这个问题——在检测到GPC信号时拒绝提供内容。三家公司均对调查结果表示异议,声称遵守隐私法律,但WebXray的报告旨在向监管机构提供持续不合规的具体证据。

## 大科技公司持续追踪,即使已选择退出 最近webXray的审计显示,谷歌、微软和Meta即使在使用全球隐私控制(GPC)等退出机制后,仍在追踪用户。报告发现,在检查的网站中,55%的网站在用户选择退出后仍设置广告Cookie。 讨论强调了一个核心问题:缺乏执法和对这些公司的实际惩罚。虽然用户可以尝试保护自己的隐私,但追踪的经济激励仍然很强。许多人认为罚款不足以起到威慑作用,并主张采取更严格的措施,包括对高管的潜在监禁。 曾任谷歌员工并领导此次审计的蒂姆·利伯特博士强调,问题不是对法律的误解,而是对用户偏好的故意漠视。他指出,内部谷歌文件证实他们知晓合规问题。 许多评论员表达了对无处不在的追踪行为的沮丧,指出即使是创建账户或购物等基本操作也会导致数据共享。这场讨论凸显了一种日益增长的认识,即选择退出往往是徒劳的,需要重大的系统性变革来保护用户隐私。
相关文章

原文

An independent privacy audit of Microsoft, Meta, and Google web traffic in California found that the companies may be violating state regulations and racking up billions in fines. According to the audit from privacy search engine webXray, 55 percent of the sites it checked set ad cookies in a user’s browser even if they opted out of tracking. Each company disputed or took issue with the research, with Google saying it was based on a “fundamental misunderstanding” of how its product works.

The webXray California Privacy Audit viewed web traffic on more than 7,000 popular websites in California in the month of March and found that most tech companies ignore when a user asks to opt-out of cookie tracking. California has stringent and well defined privacy legislation thanks to its California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) which allows users to, among other things, opt out of the sale of their personal information. There’s a system called Global Privacy Control (GPC), which includes a browser extension that indicates to a website when a user wants to opt out of tracking. 

According to the webXray audit, Google failed to let users opt out 87 percent of the time. “Googleʼs failure to honor the GPC opt-out signal is easy to find in network traffic. When a browser using GPC connects to Googleʼs servers it encodes the opt-out signal by sending the code ‘sec-gpc: 1.’ This means Google should not return cookies,” the audit said. “However, when Googleʼs server responds to the network request with the opt-out it explicitly responds with a command to create an advertising cookie named IDE using the ‘set-cookie’ command. This non-compliance is easy to spot, hiding in plain sight.”

The audit said that Microsoft fails to opt out users in the same way and has a failure rate of 50 percent in the web traffic webXray viewed. Meta’s failure rate was 69 percent and a bit more comprehensive. “Meta instructs publishers to install the following tracking code on their websites. The code contains no check for globally standard opt-out signals—it loads unconditionally, fires a tracking event, and sets a cookie regardless of the consumerʼs privacy preferences,” the audit said. It showed a copy of Meta’s tracking data which contains no GPC check at all.

webXray is an independent technology company that runs a search engine that lets people look for privacy violations on the internet. Its founder Timothy Libert is the former lead of cookie policy and compliance at Google. Libert told 404 Media he felt his job at Google was to protect its users but that his bosses didn’t agree. He left the company in 2023 and started webXray. 

“Shortly before I left my boss told me, direct quote, my job is to protect the company. There was another time I got into a very serious ontological discussion with a fairly senior engineer about what the difference was between taxes and fines and they didn’t understand there was a difference,” he said.

Microsoft, Meta, and Google have collectively paid billions in fees for previous privacy violations similar to the ones Libert and webXray found during the audit. According to Libert, the big tech companies don’t fear these fines. “In many ways fines have come to replace taxes,” he said. “What I’m trying to show here is, ‘How is enforcement failing?’ What we’re trying to do here is put people in the regulatory and legal community who work on these issues to have an understanding of what’s actually going on under the hood.”

One of the things going on under the hood revealed in the audit is how cookie banners work. Anyone who uses the internet has seen these annoying pop-ups that ask users how they want to handle cookies issued from the site. These are called consent management platforms (CMP). Google, one of the premier purveyors of cookies, runs a service called the CMP Partner Program that certifies CMPs.

“This clear conflict of interest led us to ask: do these CMPs actually work?” the audit said. “By measuring what happens when an opt-out signal is sent to a website, we were able to find out, and the findings are clear: no Google-certified CMP we evaluated works 100% of the time, and all of them are often found to fail to prevent Google from setting cookies despite opt-out signals being present.”

webXray said it tested three CMP companies and found opt-out failure rates of 77 percent, 91 percent, and 90 percent. “It does not work. It fails. It lets Google, specifically the party who said that this will work, it lets them set cookies,” Libert said.

Google, Meta, and Microsoft all disputed the audit. “This report is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how our products work. We honor opt-out provided by advertisers and publishers as required by law,” a Google spokesperson told 404 Media.

“This is a marketing ploy that mischaracterizes how GPC works and Meta's role," Meta told 404 Media. “GPC only restricts certain uses of third-party data and allows website operators to override GPC signals, and we offer the Limited Data Use feature to help websites indicate what permissions they have. When data is transmitted to us with the LDU flag, we restrict the use of that data, as specified in our State-Specific Terms.”

“Consumer privacy is a top priority for us, and we remain committed to transparency and compliance with applicable privacy requirements. As outlined in our Privacy Statement, when we receive a GPC signal, we opt the user out of sharing personal data with third parties for personalized advertising, and our advertising systems are designed to reflect that choice,” a Microsoft spokesperson said. “Certain Microsoft cookies are necessary for operational purposes, and may therefore be placed and read even when a GPC signal is detected.”

“In my view this stuff isn’t complicated. You say, ‘don’t set the cookie.’ They set the cookie,” Libert said. “The regulators see a fox going into the henhouse and the fox says, ‘I’m just here to count the eggs, not to eat any chickens.’ And they take them at their word. They don’t make them produce any public record.”

When caught, governments levy fines against companies and the companies pay. Libert said that isn’t enough. “They can just pay fines forever,” he said.

Key to the audit is that Libert and his team provided a simple solution to the violations. According to webXray, it’s as easy as adding one line of code. “When Microsoftʼs ad server receives traffic with Sec-GPC: 1, all it has to do is return a 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons status code to indicate the content cannot be served due to the consumerʼs legally defined opt-out. No cookie is set in this condition,” the audit said.

“This is the Strait of Hormuz in the data economy. If you want to make a change, this is where you cut it off. Anything short of that is theatrical political posture,” Libert said.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com