When you actually look at the sites, it's clear Brave hasn't done their homework or don't really understand the online ad ecosystem.
For example, Enfield council ( enfield.gov.uk ) is using Google's ad server (DFP) set to show only internal ads. All their advertising is for cross-promoting projects and sites that Enfield council is involved with, including pest control, social lettings, a publicly-funded golf course, school meals...
It's not showing ads from GDN (Google Display Network) or elsewhere, it seems to only show these internal promotions.
You are missing the fact that Enfield council has RTB House , Criteo retargeting , Tru Optik demand side platform , OpenX , Districtm, msecnd , doubleclick , omnitag integrated as 3rd party. This doesnt make sense if the intent was purely to show internal ads. The implementation here seems to be no different to any other news site. As a visitor to the council website , I would expect that the same privacy levels and UX as that of gov.uk sites.
GDS are bringing them together, slowly... I recently applied for Personal Independence Payments (PIP). And despite being a new 'system' plus the assessments are carried out by two large IT outsourcing companies (Capita & Atos). It is entirely paper-based (drive.google is blocked, they don't take emails...). If you request a copy of the report they photocopy the physical file and post it. They are so backwards it is unreal.
Plus there's no provisions for an alternative format to the 30 page paper form. Not very independent if handwriting is an issue (the target demographic is people with disabilities).
Don't get me started on the actual assessment/ assessor. (it's been a long day going through this stuff).
I think they understand it fine. As you say, the website is using Google's ad server. So it is sending detailed identifying info about each user to Google.
Just because that has become normal for "the online ad ecosystem" over the past few years doesn't mean that it should be acceptable or that we cannot try to stop it.
What is the alternative here? Should Enfield spend tax payer money creating an alternative tool to show banner ad cross-promotions and re-training their teams?
Where do you stop? Is Google Analytics evil too? What about Twitter feeds?
> Where do you stop? Is Google Analytics evil too?
Absolutely.
> What about Twitter feeds?
In what context? Including/embedding Twitter cookies and/or Javascript in pages paid-for by citizens, which citizens are required to use to exercise their rights? Absolutely.
As a non-exclusive outlet to disseminate information via an independent site (twitter.com), which anyone is free to avoid and ignore? That's fine.
In reality, what happens is lots of council services (including police) use twitter as the main real-time source of information for citizens.
Should they use an alternative platform? probably not, because twitter is the biggest and best known, so you could argue you can reach the most people with it.
Yes, Google Analytics has many of the same problems. The alternative to that is to analyze the server logs or to simply not track your users' behaviour in detail.
Right, but are you suggesting that the Google ad servers are not going to use that information to sell to these visitors on other websites that are showing ads from the GDN?
I'm not a Google fan by any means, but DFP is the #1 ad server in the world and an industry standard, and I definitely don't think they would use DFP data to populate GDN segments because it would be a privacy nightmare.
You have to consider DFP is a software tool, it would be like Slack selling your data so other SaaS can target you when you are talking about buying a new CMS.
Why does Enfield council need to use adtech tracking to optimise their ads for other services? It's not like they are competing with anyone to deliver the most efficient services by fractions of a percent. Surely basic keyword targeted or completely untargeted ads are all they need.
The difference is the beholder. If the beholder's income is threatened when people are educated about risks, they'll invariably declare it fear mongering.
My prior comment was so well received that I'd like to add that another motivator for claims of "fear monger!" is when people delight in their lack of concern, such that the concern of anyone else feels threatening to them.
I worked a summer shift at a heavy machinery factory just after high school before college. I was the single and only person, to my knowledge, that made use of the provided ear and air protection (a face mask and ear plugs, given that we worked with fiberglass with incredibly loud machines).
I was told multiple times that I was "paranoid" and faced a negative reaction because someone protecting themselves pierced a hole in the delusion that everything was fine.
Extortion would be threatening to reveal bad acts, in order to gain something from those threatened. If they always reveal bad acts, and don't even try to gain anything from the bad actors -- well, that's just plainly not extortion, nor even criminal in any way.
That would be blackmail. Extortion is "the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats." Brave extorts websites by threatening to block the site's choosen revenue stream and to instead earn revenues from visitors to the site unless the site uses Brave to funnel their revenues.
I don't have an issue with ad blockers or alternative payment methods but the way Brave combines the two in my opinion amounts to extortion.
Sure, I was focusing on the blackmail subset of extortion, because (a) this posting was discussing their releasing of information and (b) they can't actually use any force or threats of force. Helping their users decline to provide tracking information on unless they and their users get a cut is also not extortion, because the website owners don't have a right to that information.
You seem to believe that owners of websites have a natural right to their chosen business model, even if others don't wish to help enable that business model.
For example, Enfield council ( enfield.gov.uk ) is using Google's ad server (DFP) set to show only internal ads. All their advertising is for cross-promoting projects and sites that Enfield council is involved with, including pest control, social lettings, a publicly-funded golf course, school meals...
It's not showing ads from GDN (Google Display Network) or elsewhere, it seems to only show these internal promotions.