That’s why I use Firefox with uMatrix and uBlock Origin, also with a lot of settings locked down just to the point before it starts breaking the web. It can be a pain to configure per site, but uMatrix gives you the ability to lock out elements and servers when you visit webpages giving you control, and you’d be surprised how many things and sites are involved with one webpage, with much being unnecessary. I also run my own privacy search proxies SearxNG and Whoogle so my searches are private with IP address hidden, along with Mullvad VPN and sometime Tor Browser to conceal my home IP address. Also, on the home network I have Pi-Hole/Unbound recursive DNS servers to prevent tracking from a DNS server as well as protection from DNS injection attacks. And I also run different Linux computers and virtual machines varying any fingerprinting… And I’m not on social media as it’s a trap and why the CIA’s venture capitalist firm was involved in their creation (it’s also unhealthy in today’s world). And remember, they were floating the RESTRICT Act which could have made using a VPN or Tor illegal as well as giving the government the power to hack computers found in violation. There was also the KOSA Act premised on keeping kids safe online leading to digital IDs so you could be perfectly tracked and identified. Unable to get KOSA passed federally, they’ve transitioned to doing something similar state by state. On the positive, this kind of signals Google is looking for an alternative as those laws aren’t close to being implemented.
https://mashable.com/article/google-digital-fingerprinting-user-tracking
The tech company makes a U-turn in its privacy promises.
By Chase DiBenedetto
Google is tracking your online behavior in the name of advertising, reintroducing a data collection process that ingests all of your online signals (from IP address to complex browser information) and pinpoints unique users or devices, also known as “digital fingerprinting.”
The company’s updated platform program policies include relaxed restrictions on advertisers and personalized ad targeting across a range of devices, an outcome of a larger “advertising ecosystem shift” and the advancement of privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) like on-device processing and trusted execution environments, in the words of the company.
A departure from its longstanding pledge to user choice and privacy, Google argues these technologies offer enough protection for users while also creating “new ways for brands to manage and activate their data safely and securely.” The new feature will be available to advertisers beginning Feb. 16, 2025.
“With new innovations like PETs to mitigate risks, we see an opportunity to set a high privacy bar on the use of data like IP. We can do this by applying privacy-preserving protections that help businesses reach their customers across these new platforms without the need to re-identify them,” writes Google. “And because we’re looking to encourage responsible data use as the new standard across the web, we’ll also partner with the broader ads industry and help make PETs more accessible.”
In July, Google announced it was backtracking on a decision to kill third-party cookies, instead putting the role of privacy watchdog in the hands of users by adding personalized privacy options to a new product known as the Privacy Sandbox.
Contrary to other data collection tools like cookies, digital fingerprinting is difficult to spot, and thus even harder for even privacy-conscious users to erase or block. On Dec. 19, the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) — a data protection and privacy regulator — labeled Google “irresponsible” for the policy change, saying the shift to fingerprinting is an unfair means of tracking users, reducing choice and control over their personal information. The watchdog also warned that the move could encourage riskier advertiser behavior.
“Google itself has previously said that fingerprinting does not meet users’ expectations for privacy, as users cannot easily consent to it as they would cookies. This in turn means they cannot control how their information is collected. To quote Google’s own position on fingerprinting from 2019: ‘We think this subverts user choice and is wrong,'” wrote ICO executive director of regulatory risk Stephen Almond.
The ICO warned that it will intervene if Google cannot demonstrate existing legal requirements for such tech, including options to secure freely-given consent, ensure fair processing, and uphold the right to erasure: “Businesses should not consider fingerprinting a simple solution to the loss of third-party cookies and other cross-site tracking signals.”