Starmer Refuses to Leave

They won't stop it, they'll just tax it more effectively.

I don't think there has ever, in human history, been a worse time to advocate for open sourcing tracking data.

Visser, have a bit of a read about Anthropic is saying about their new model.

Keeping powerful AI systems and sensitive data controlled rather than fully open helps ensure there’s accountability, making it much easier to trace how attacks happened, who was behind them, and how to prevent them in future.

What you're suggesting is the Wild West but every outlaw is equipped with and army of attack helicopters.

A better solution is to ban every form of tracking. Make it highly illegal. The most a company should be allowed to do is to track how you use their app when you're on it. Anything beyond that should be banned.

But I take it from the Z grade, which I assume is the worst on your scale, that you feel Africa has been destroyed by the successors to the Liberals?

Where did liberals on this board get this political education?

Read the string that contains the quoteTrad, you will see exactly how the new internet economy is destroying the traditional concepts of competition. It’s all there for you in black and while, your favorite colors.

On this site, the background of published comments is not white but a greenish/yellowish colour.

See, peeps, when liberals are asked simple questions, they can not answer.

The question was what the old dusty competition tenets are and what the new competition tenets are.

And more, there is nothing of what it is claimed: the thread reads about an absence of competition and what it should be done to correct the situation.

@ButtPlug, when I say "open source," I mean the government would be the author.

So only they could approve any changes to it. The Open advantage is that anyone can develop, ensuring no technical issues. Also, Open source is transparent, so it is clear to everyone how it works- and it has one set of privacy settings.

There would be a central database that resets the cookie ID for each user, say every 3 months, deleting all past user data. Search and advertising products could still work while protecting privacy.

The question was what the old dusty competition tenets are and what the new competition tenets are.

Read the string…..but tell us about your rating, how did you come to that conclusion?

A central data base, that sounds like the government controlling data security….nope I’d rather have the smart guys doing that. And it’s never going to happen, what’s your PlanB?

lol that thing that Google does, I'm sure governments could do it.

Just imagine, if you can, the level of clusterfuck if government suddenly decided they were going to emulate Google's data infrastructure and management.

Simply thinking about it as I type this is giving me chest pains.

The stupid is strong in this thread...Snark, the government is even less trustworthy than the tech giants....duh!!!

.

I would rather have a Tech sector, even if it means the government are the author. We cant have a foreign country controlling access to our data and creating foreign based monopolies. Open sourcing the technology will mean that development will not have to be done by the government, and a single database means a level playing field for all companies.

As ButtPlug pointed out, we cant just have just any company having access to the data - at an individual level which can identify users by ID,

it would become mayhem. So it is the only solution.to have one central database that just gives aggregate data.to protect individual privacy.

Otherwise, it is just leaving it and allowing US Tech to grow at our expense. If they can access the data, a the very least native companies should be able to do the same. The only other option is totally blocking tracking technologies of American. Do you think they would allow foreign countries to access internet user data inside America? Especially if American companies are not allowed to do this. It has to be a level playing field what ever it is, or even just ban American companies and just allow native companies to do this. That would grow our tech sector, and make Big Tech smaller.

Google tracks people all over the world to improve their products, and then declares their profits in Ireland to avoid paying tax on profits to each country.

"I would rather have a Tech sector, even if it means the government are the author. We cant have a foreign country controlling access to our data and creating foreign based monopolies. Open sourcing the technology will mean that development will not have to be done by the government, and a single database means a level playing field for all companies."

They are not controlling access to your data. They are controlling the access to your data which they have collected...it's now their data.

No company is obliged to share user data with competitors or anybody else in the market place.

Anybody is free to do the same.

Your real gripe comes down to them being market leaders.

The shortcut is to legislate. The better route is to innovate and/or compete.

You act like they are playing by a different rules or have stacked the deck. You should create your own game or become better than them at their game. Those are your options. But if your game isn't better and if you don't end up out-skilling, they're gonna keep winning.

Everybody was dealt the same hand and you think that because one is on a losing streak you have the right to demand the winner sneak you some Aces under the table.

Your wanting government to control this stuff is the equivalent of a kid wanting his mommy to ref the football game.

For heaven's sake, have a teaspoon of cement, will you?

I have a question. You're here whining about tracking data and how it's all so unfair. As you know, and yet again, the US are leading the way in the new stuff...AI.

An example; There was some Ai craze around recently where kids where taking pictures of their hands and getting Ai to palm read. As a result, ChatGPT now has the biggest repository of images of children's hands. Superficially, one might think that's meaningless. Until that data becomes valuable for medical research, design, or some other means by which it can be used to generate income.

What then? Are you gonna complain and say that data that was willingly given to OpenAI should somehow be restricted and that it's offering US firms unfair market advantage? What stops anybody from doing anything similar? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

And that's the thing. It's US innovators that will look at that data set and turn it into something useful.

It's a perfect example of how while Europe remains cynical and complains about how they are being taken advantage of, the Yanks are rolling with new technology and constantly extracting value by taking the risks required to extract said value.

It's not simply a tracking data issue, Visser. It's an entire mindset and environment that needs changing in Europe. For every complaint you have, the Yanks have ten innovations.

FFS. Stop being a crybaby, pick yourself up, and make something new. Dreaming is free. I told you about something I had made. I even shared it with you. What was your response? Cynicism, sarcasm, negativity, etc, etc. You might want to think about why that is.

...or sit there and complain about user data.

Originally, I was talking about a search engine, which only needs aggregated user data.

If Google were blocked from doing this, it would be the end of Google. It is an unfair competitive advantage and an artificial monopoly.

I certainly believe European companies could do this, but they are blocked from doing it by GDPR.

GDPR is like walking around with a huge anchor tied to your foot.

Read the string…..but tell us about your rating, how did you come to that conclusion?

It is very funny.

No answer and adding another question.

Liberals are empty, they have nothing in store.

What are the old tenets and the new tenets on competition?

"I certainly believe European companies could do this, but they are blocked from doing it by GDPR.

GDPR is like walking around with a huge anchor tied to your foot."

GDPR is applied based on where the user is and not where the company's headquarters are. That's a regulatory level playing field. Unless I'm not understanding something.

Are you talking about the cost of compliance and how Google can cop it while start-ups can't?

Not. What I mean is that Google is allowed to use tracking technologies, while other search engines aren't.

In theory, much of the tracking is illegal because GDPR only covers cookies.

That is why I suggested an open-source solution that provides a level playing field, but is more privacy-centric. Either ban the tracking completely, or have a level playing field.

Open source products are good. Anyone can develop it, but it has to be approved by the author, in this case, the government. Big Tech will have to ask to make updates by writing the code first to apply for government acceptance.

The stupid is strong in this thread...Snark, the government is even less trustworthy than the tech giants....duh!!!

Another funny bit.

Trusting the government with what.

US lament the downfall of European countries etc

Which is incorrect. If ever European countries had their own solutions, it would be clearer when they take a knee at the US. They could not pretend to be coerced.

Of course, the US do not want European countries to assert themselves, to have their own technological suites. It could mean they are able to show the US the middle finger as any sovereign entity should.

The US have been relentlessly threatening to shut down the internet in Europe or credit cards.

What has this to do with trust in a government... Nothing at all.

No answer and adding another question.

Your own tactics, you have never answered a question honestly on this Board

Liberals are empty, they have nothing in store.

Unlike communists?

Your own tactics, you have never answered a question honestly on this Board

It is very funny. Like pushing a button and getting the expected behaviour. See how it works, now the answer is made, liberals are in panic mode, they demand more, they want diversion.

Remember, peeps, liberals are en route to kill hundreds of millions people.

Unlike communists?

And now, that is the communists.

This board is addictive. Strong liberal specimens.

Just for you Trad...

.

Visser, I think you’ve got the wrong idea here. How do you work in this industry but understand critical guardrails this poorly?

GDPR definitely doesn’t just cover cookies, and Google doesn’t get some kind of special exemption either. They still have to follow the same rules, they just have way more resources to handle compliance than smaller companies.

GDPR is about personal data in general, not only cookies. Things like IP addresses, device IDs, browsing history, and user tracking can all fall under it too.

So it’s not that Google is magically allowed to track people while everyone else can’t. The same regulations apply across the board.

Again, perhaps I am missing the point you are making but I can only respond to what you are saying and what you are saying is simply not correct.

@ButtPlug, Context...The topic is search engines. When I was talking about GDPR, I was talking about tracking people across the internet (third-party tracking).

So, I made no mention of first-party data (a company's own website user data, or email list, etc.)

GDPR is a wide topic, but it in its most conceptual level - it is consent-based marketing. So, any tracking without consent is by definition illegal.

When I said GDPR is about cookies, I was talking about a cookie consent banner. If someone accepts this, Google is allowed to track people using cookies.

However, we know that Google uses a range of ways to track people without permission. So even if someone pressed reject, Google continues to track people despite their explicitly not consenting.

For example, digital fingerprinting tracks thousands of user data variables—such as IP addresses, installed fonts, browser configurations, screen resolution, and Android device specifications—to create a stateless yet persistent identifier. This allows user tracking even when cookies are disabled or routinely cleared, or when changing devices. Google creates a central permanent database collecting information about the profile they have of you, using a range of ways that get around your choice of consent.

That is why I say a single, unified way of tracking should be used - one that also respects people's consentuial choice about whether they want to be tracked. So it would improve privacy. - but also provide a level playing field for all tech companies. A system which just gives aggregate data, without revealing the IDs of people. So it would be more like TV advertising, where only the average data is shared.

So this is not my field, but I’m bored sitting in Rhodes harbor waiting to depart. So I asked Chat about your claims, here’s the response:

would summarize it this way:

1. The core concern is legitimate: modern tech companies can still collect substantial behavioral data even when users reject cookies.
2. Fingerprinting and cross-service tracking are real techniques.
3. The argument for more privacy-preserving aggregate advertising has merit.

But the statement becomes less reliable when it asserts as fact that:

1. Google universally ignores consent,
2. maintains a “central permanent database” in the implied omniscient sense,
3. or tracks users across devices regardless of controls.

Those are stronger claims than the publicly proven evidence fully supports.

Some agreement on the privacy concerns, but not for the Google claims. Given the EU attitude towards the US tech companies, I doubt something obvious would be ignored.They have launched dozens of lawsuits against these companies.

My own reaction is a little different.The advertising element of the internet doesn’t bother me as long as it’s used for purposes of selling a company’s product. If it’s used for other targeting or if the information isn’t protected would be a a problem.

But this advertising is fueling the massive spending underpinning the growth of AI in general, which one assumes (maybe wrongly) will be a vast boon for mankind. Cut off that source of revenue and our progress will be much slower and the initiative may pass to countries like China, which is a sobering thought.

For the West to continue to lead, the advertising cash cow has to stay in place one would think. And if the data has to reside somewhere it’s probably safer with Google and other hyper scalers.

Something I have noticed about American AI products is that they sometimes provide a curated version of sources when the topic is about them.

Here is some stuff from DeepSeek AI.

https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media-centre/news-and-blogs/2024/12/our-response-to-google-s-policy-change-on-fingerprinting/

The Official Government Source

The ICO published an official blog post on December 19, 2024, titled "Our response to Google's policy change on fingerprinting" . This is the primary source document where the UK GDPR regulator directly addresses Google and digital fingerprinting.

Source: Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) - the UK's independent data protection regulator

URL: ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media-centre/news-and-blogs/2024/12/our-response-to-google-s-policy-change-on-fingerprinting/

Direct Quotes from the ICO's Official Statement

Here is what the ICO actually said, directly from the source:

On Fingerprinting and User Control

"The ICO's view is that fingerprinting is not a fair means of tracking users online because it is likely to reduce people's choice and control over how their information is collected."

On Google's Policy Change Being "Irresponsible"

"The change to Google's policy means that fingerprinting could now replace the functions of third-party cookies. We think this change is irresponsible."

The ICO explicitly quoted Google's own 2019 position against fingerprinting to highlight the contradiction:

"To quote Google's own position on fingerprinting from 2019: 'We think this subverts user choice and is wrong.'"

On Consent Requirements

The ICO made clear that UK law still applies regardless of Google's policy change:

"Businesses do not have free rein to use fingerprinting as they please. Like all advertising technology, it must be lawfully and transparently deployed – and if it is not, the ICO will act."

"Businesses must give users fair choices over whether to be tracked before using fingerprinting technology, including obtaining consent from their users where necessary."

On How Fingerprinting Undermines Consent

The ICO's official explainer for the public directly addresses your concern about consent being bypassed:

"Fingerprinting, however, relies on signals that you cannot easily wipe. So, even if you 'clear all site data', the organisation using fingerprinting techniques could immediately identify you again. This is not transparent and cannot easily be controlled."

"Fingerprinting is harder for browsers to block and therefore, even privacy-conscious users will find this difficult to stop."

Official Supporting Documents

Beyond the blog post, the ICO also published:

Why This Matters for Your Original Claim

The ICO's official statement confirms the core concern you raised:

1. Google is changing its policy to allow fingerprinting starting February 16, 2025
2. The ICO acknowledges fingerprinting bypasses standard consent mechanisms because users cannot "clear" their fingerprint like they can cookies
3. The UK regulator explicitly says this reduces user choice and control - which aligns with your point about tracking happening despite rejecting consent in traditional ways

As for "The West". America and its sanctions and economic warfare, and threats to invade Greenland, part of Denmark/EU and NATO, pretty much show it is America first. America is panicking from the threat of China, and will do anything to try to prevent China from passing it by.

American Tech companies have an unfair tracking advantage that allows them to access our data while also violating data collection laws. How much access do we have to our own internet user data? How much access does the EU have to American user data? GDPR is a joke, the only way to properly implement it is to take over the tracking.

That seems a bit like shopping for the answer you wanted rather than an objective opinion. But sure, why not add Chinese AI, to Chinese cars…..good luck with them as an alternative to America. Their obsession with Taiwan is all the proof you need of what kind of masters they’ll be,

I dont want China or the US having access to our user data.

I would prefer to just block America from accessing our user data. We do not have access to American user data. Then just allow European companies to access European user data. but in a way that protects privacy.

Fool's Paradise is a real place...

@Draad,

Are you expecting the Democrats to win the 2026 midterms? With the mass immigration to Texas, the brain power is increasing.

I don't expect anything...and although Texas is more than 50% Hispanic, we still, they still vote red...Hispanic Texans don't want their neighborhoods to be flooded by illegal immigrants and gangsters...more brainpower my arse...we just don't do stupid here...as for the rest of the country...some well meaning bleeding heart liberals will probably fck up the mid terms a bit...hope not too bad though.

IDK ..Taxas is 50% Hispanic and still voting Red...people thinking different than you isn't necessarily stupid, just different...people looking down at other people really p!$$es me off...just because Copilot thinks you're smart doesn't make you smart...you fooled it with all your uncredited AI copy and pasted... Not saying you're stupid, but you've got no business calling anyone else stupid...you used to have a better sense of humor...what happened? You seem a lot more bitter these days ...bring back the old Shark...and I'll try being less of a judgemental d!ck myself.

Visser, I finally read that long reply.

What you are still describing is a market power problem.

And actually, EU regulations already punish Google for being the market leader in ways that EU companies are not - perhaps we should talk about that a little.

Also, how are you gonna say that Google is acting illegally but EU companies aren't? What are you basing that on?

Anyway...

"For example, digital fingerprinting tracks thousands of user data variables—such as IP addresses, installed fonts, browser configurations, screen resolution, and Android device specifications—to create a stateless yet persistent identifier. This allows user tracking even when cookies are disabled or routinely cleared, or when changing devices. Google creates a central permanent database collecting information about the profile they have of you, using a range of ways that get around your choice of consent."

This is extremely misleading. Predominantly because Google offer a wide range of services. Heaven'a knows how many times I've clicked "allow" on all the multitude of Google products I use. For my websites alone I use about 5 different products. For my App...at least 4. For my business, also a bunch.

So be honest here and say that Google likely collects more data because they provide far more services than literally anybody else. Google Maps, Gmail, Calendar, Drive, Sheets, Docs, Workspace, Sites, on and on...and that's before we get to Google Play Consile which is an animal all on its own. Analytics? YouTube? Chrome with its gazillion features.

So let's not pretend that Google is a market leader in data simply because people search on Google and Google illegally collects data. That rubbish and you know it.

They have all that data because they offer an unmatched suite of services which might not be the best in terms of the individual product but as a coherent system blow anything else out of the water any day of the week.

So let's not pretend that Google is a market leader in data simply because people search on Google and Google illegally collects data. That rubbish and you know it.

They have all that data because they offer an unmatched suite of services which might not be the best in terms of the individual product but as a coherent system blow anything else out of the water any day of the week.

Point made very well. The real issue Europe and the US face is not Google, it’s the fact that most chips are made in Taiwan….which could be invaded any day by China. That’s the stress in the technology plates that could lead to an techquake of monstrous proportions.

Trump is the first Western leader who has done something about it by supporting Intel which has a vital chip foundry and by encouraging Taiwan Semi, probably the most important company in the world, to manufacture in the US.

And he gets no credit for that either.

I see the gripe that Visser has like this.

You play a ten match series and lose nine games out of ten. In the final game, most of the 50/50 calls go your opponent's way.

In the post series presser you complain about that game and claim things would have been different had it not been for those 50/50s in that one game.

...but even if you won that game it would still have been eight games to two.

I look at my phone and I have not a single App created by a European company on it. Literally, not one.

I think of all the tech platforms I'm subscribed to and the only one I can think of that is sort of European is DSTV because some French company recently acquired it.

So, having already massively underperformed in the tech sector, what is Europe doing to try and win somewhere else?

Take England as an example. They're basically a bank at this point. But banking is slowly changing. Tokenisation of assets is a huge deal and it is without a shadow of a doubt the future. BlackRock have said so themselves. Banking is going to move to blockchain too. The secured ledger is archaic and inefficient. Blockchain is instant, traceable and incorruptible.

Where is England as regards all this? Well, they have been moving to ever stricter regulatory control of almost everything to do with crypto.

Where is the US? Oh, that's right, they're leading the way, loosening regulation, approving ETFs and bubbling away as more and more blockchain innovation happens there every year.

Why is England not recognising the changing landscape and trying to lead the way? Seriously, what harm is there is deregulating, lowering taxes, funding blockchain projects and trying to attract blockchain innovation to its shores instead of chasing it away at every turn?

That's what the UAE have done and because of it they are putting themselves into an excellent position.

I can totally sympathise with being treated unfairly. But if you shoot yourself in the foot and lose the race as a result, all I'm gonna do is laugh.