When you tell Chrome to wipe private data about you, it spares two websites from the purge: Google.com, YouTube
- Reference: 1603146350
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/10/19/google_cookie_wipe/
- Source link:
Programmer Jeff Johnson noticed the unusual behavior, and this month [1]documented the issue with screenshots. In his assessment of the situation, he noted that if you set up Chrome, on desktop at least, to automatically delete all cookies and so-called site data when you quit the browser, it deletes it all as expected – except your site data for Google.com and YouTube.com.
While cookies are typically used to identify you and store some of your online preferences when visiting websites, site data is on another level: it includes, among other things, a [2]storage database in which a site can [3]store personal information about you, on your computer, that can be accessed again by the site the next time you visit. Thus, while your Google and YouTube cookies may be wiped by Chrome, their site data remains on your computer, and it could, in future, be used to identify you.
Johnson noted that after he configured Chrome to wipe all cookies and site data when the application closed, everything was cleared as expected for sites like apple.com. Yet, the main Google search site and video service YouTube were allowed to keep their site data, though the cookies were gone. If Google chooses at some point to stash the equivalent of your Google cookies in the Google.com site data storage, they could be retrieved next time you visit Google, and identify you, even though you thought you'd told Chrome not to let that happen.
We're suing Google for harvesting our personal info even though we opted out of Chrome sync – netizens [4]READ MORE
Ultimately, it potentially allows Google, and only Google, to continue tracking Chrome users who opted for some more privacy; something that is enormously valuable to the internet goliath in delivering ads. Many users set Chrome to automatically delete cookies-and-site-data on exit for that reason – to prevent being stalked around the web – even though it often requires them to log back into websites the next time they visit due to their per-session cookies being wiped.
Yet Google appears to have granted itself an exception. The situation recalls a similar issue over location tracking, where Google [5]continued to track people’s location through their apps even when users actively selected the option to prevent that. Google had put the real option to start location tracking under a different setting that didn’t even include the word “location.”
In this case, “Clear cookies and site data when you quit Chrome” doesn’t actually mean what it says, at least not for Google.
There is a workaround: you can manually add “Google.com” and “YouTube.com” within the browser to a list of “Sites that can never use cookies.” In that case, no information, not even site data, is saved from those sites, which is all in all a little confusing.
Just a bug?
Johnson tried to give Google the benefit of the doubt, and suggested “perhaps this is just a Google Chrome bug, not intentional behavior” though noted: “The question is why it only affects Google sites, not non-Google sites.” Site data can included cached files, we note.
This is very far from the first time that Google has been accused of storing personal information despite clear user intent. In July, it was [6]sued by Chrome users who accusing the mega-corp of collecting personal information despite their decision not to sync data stored in Chrome with a Google Account.
"Google intentionally and unlawfully causes Chrome to record and send users’ personal information to Google regardless of whether a user elects to Sync or even has a Google account," the lawsuit stated.
And in February, it was [7]accused of sending what looked like per-installation ID numbers to Google, which developers said could also be used to track people across the web, and which may violate Europe's General Data Protection Regulation, because the identifier could be considered to be personally identifiable data.
In response, Google insisted the numbers only included information about the variation of Chrome being used, rather than a unique fingerprint. However, shortly afterward it [8]changed the description of the identifier and removed a section that said it “will not contain any personally identifiable information, and will only describe the state of the installation of Chrome itself,” rewriting it in impenetrable language to say instead “a subset of low entropy variations are included in network requests sent to Google. The combined state of these variations is non-identifying, since it is based on a 13-bit low entropy value.”
Investigations
Google is being investigated by the US government and European Union for operating services without following its own rules and unfairly promoting its own services over those of competitors.
The search giant also announced earlier this year it was planning to kill off all third-party cookies by the end of 2021, as has already been done by Safari and Firefox. Though it will still retain first-party cookies and, it seems, give its own sites special preference in Chrome.
We asked Google for an explanation. We will update this story if it gets back to us. ®
Updated to add
A Google spokesperson has been in touch to say the issue is a programming error, and will be fixed: "We are aware of a bug in Chrome that is impacting how cookies are cleared on some first-party Google websites. We are investigating the issue, and plan to roll out a fix in the coming days."
Get our [9]Tech Resources
[1] https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/chrome-google.html
[2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/localStorage
[3] https://dev.to/rdegges/please-stop-using-local-storage-1i04
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/28/google_chrome_privacy_lawsuit/
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2018/08/13/google_location_tracking/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/28/google_chrome_privacy_lawsuit/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2020/02/05/google_chrome_id_numbers/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2020/03/11/google_personally_identifiable_info/
[9] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
I think I'd have been more surprised if it hadn't excluded Google stuff. Seriously surprised, like fall of my seat in shock.
How did they think this wouldn't be noticed ?
It's like they want to distract you with little stuff so you aren't thinking how you are being exploited in the BIG picture !
No a conspiracy nut - just suggesting you read the words rather than follow the bouncing ball.
"We asked Google for an explanation."
Can I take a guess at the inevitable answer? Something along the lines of:
"It was test code that was never supposed to be released to the public. We have no idea why it was left in the released code, but we are looking into it in order to see that it never happens again."
Hey, it's worked for them all the other times!
Shun go ogle and everything else under Alphabet. They are a disastrous societal accident in progress.
BleachBit is your friend!
BleachBit works a treat for clearing out cookies, vaccuuming out SQLite databases and other PII from storage and is even in the Linux repositories.
You can also assign BleachBit to clear out custom folders or files within the preferences settings if what you want purged is not already listed.
I set up a bash alias to clear everything out using the command terminal after I'm done browsing the web.
https://www.bleachbit.org/
Re: BleachBit is your friend!
I'd probably be interested in installing something like what you mentioned, except I've already uninstalled Chrome entirely.
I noticed that Google & Youtube were *not* wiped even though I told it to wipe everything; I noticed that it kept banging on about JavaScript issues even though I had explicitly turned it off; and I had gotten beyond frustrated at it constantly rendering sites into indecipherable glop. Case in point: NewEgg.com has Edit fields for Price, but Chrome kept being unable to render the maximum value Edit field. I have no idea why, but load the exact same URL under IE11 & the site renders just fine.
I finally gave up & uninstalled Chrome. Imagine my (lack of) surprise when I found Chrome data splooged all over my system that the uninstall "accidentally" missed. I restored my system to the point prior to having installed it thus ensuring all such orphaned data got purged, & have given up on Chrome.
I don't know what/why sites won't render properly *except* under IE11, but it irks the piss out of me that sites (like Youtube) scream at me to use a "modern" browser (ignoring the fact that there's a copy of IE11 in Win10) because "older unsupported browsers will fail to render our site properly", yet I have to use said pseudo-outdated browser to get their sites to render in such a way as to be accessible.
I'll go back to using FireFox ESR for those few times I want to determine just how screwed up the web has become under a "modern" browser. =-\
Re: BleachBit is your friend!
Just for the record, although I test out most other browsers[0], I use Firefox ESR exclusively for actual web browsing. It's the only one that always works, every time, for the things I need a browser for.
Obviously advice is worth what you pay for it, and YMMV. Have a beer anyway.
[0] Can't convince a client that their marketing driven choice is a piece of crap unless you know exactly why it is a marketing driven piece of crap.
Re: uninstall BleachBit
If you are using Windows, and you restore, there is no guarantee that some data structures are modified through the restore process; Restore does exactly that, restore pretty well, but Delete was never a great part of the program. RTM, Restore doesn't try to damage a lot of user data, of which Chrome is creating.
Re: BleachBit is your friend!
Google, among others, is why I have installed.
Shock news as shock news is neither shocking or news
For a start, this isn't something discovered recently. Just a mere google (heh) for google.com and local storage shows that someone asked this very question 6 years and 9 months ago ("Why does chrome never delete google.com localstorage?") so seeing this on El Reg over 6 years later is just baffling.
The article also seems to conflate cookies and local storage. Sure google could *potentially* store cookies in the local storage, in the same way they could *potentially* sell your browsing habits and IP address to any takers. The question is what is possible, but what are they actually doing or intending to do?
Given this has been happening for so long already, and no clue as to how far back this particular behaviour actually goes, it does sound like an attempt to make much of an issue than it really is - hence the article emphasising what google could do if they decided to put cookies in the local storage.
When much of the argument is based on a hypothetical premise to support its doomsaying, it merely highlights the severe lack of substance otherwise.
So google has been doing this for over 6 years at least. What have they hidden in the localstorage after all that time? If there is something to show for it, then that is where the article should be going.
Otherwise, if you want to decry google for hypothetical situations, you may as well pop down the pub and re-create Harry Enfield's Self Righteous brothers.
Google has enough skeletons in their closet already - no need to find another closet and postulate how many skeletons they could fit in there.
Quelle surprise !