yes, that's a possibility, but we're far from server-side GA implementations and we do have an option to make a data request to figure out what companies are doing.
If they get caught lying (and that tends to happen in the end) that's another violation that is taken seriously nowadays.
For example, my e-mail server started picking up messages from [email protected]. Making it pretty clear a company did not respect my wishes to completely delete all data and user account references. They simply changed my email in the DB.
Sorry. They do wait and force a choice before loading the external scripts.
That's the only mechanism one can use to really be compliant as GA (and other providers) stick identifiers onto the session as soon as the script has been loaded.
Many "cookie banners" have finally started to work in the EU. Once you deny PII processing many sites don't load GA etc... The time of malicious compliance is starting to pass. Some sites have figured it out and realized they really don't need personalized analytics and have replaced implementations with privacy respecting ones(ex, plausible). This lets them remove the dark-patternish banner and no additional consent is required as all data is pooled together and one persons actions truly can't be singled out.
GDPR obviously has other good effects but as PII processing through cookies is what most people know, I chose that as an example. Email tracking links & pixels are another good example.
There's also a big difference between 2018 and 2025 when discussing GDPR in work contexts and saying that implementing this or that tracking would be illegal.
It's a slow process, but it's working as intended.
As I understand, these "data safety" sections are what Google gives app owners to comply with "right to be informed". If they say "we're sharing location data with third parties for Advertising purposes" I'm believing it.
I agree that they should really be asking for consent as well, but they don't seem to be doing that. We've got no way to use legitimate location related functionality and deny advertising related usecases. Remember, consent must be specific and granular.
It'll be a while, until enforcement catches up. It's taken ~6 years for cookie banners to get a "reject" button and those are really easy to review and enforce.
It'll happen though, enforcement is just slow. GDPR is a fairly well written regulation, as far as corner cases and catching workarounds goes. So unless the laws change, enforcement will catch up eventually.
Just a few days ago, they updated their android application info and stated they're going to share location data with third parties for "Advertising or Marketing" purposes...[1]
They also removed a promise to "never sell your data" in their FAQ[2] 2 weeks ago.
There's a choice between first party(collected) and third party(shared). Also a list of purposes one chooses from. This could include "App functionality", "Analytics", "Account management", etc...
Two of the possible 3rd party choices are "Advertising or marketing" and "Personalization". These two have been chosen for firefox. This includes sharing data with advertising partners.
A change to those options is what triggered the notification. It's not a requirement for using location features.
I'd say a part of figuring out what they are doing is reading such information. Even if the code itself doesn't reflect it yet, it's usually listed in preparation.
It's also a good way to figure out the code needs to be reviewed :)
using a cookie that is essential for non-essential purposes, is not allowed. So using a load-balancer cookie is fine, as long as it's only used for load balancing.
Once it's used for other (technically non-essential) needs as well, one needs to find another basis for processing or ask permission for that second purpose(consent basis).
Also, if the LB cookie can be non-identifying, while fullfilling the stated technical purpose, it must not allow identifying users. So for LB cookies, one must not use a unique ID per user, but an LB ID instead. Something like "node1", "node2" etc...
> in practice if each small business were expected to audit every one of their inputs, it would be hard to get any business done.
While I agree, that a full audit would be difficult for smaller operations, it took me 2-5 minutes to do a quick check on what is being stored client-side and to come to a logical conclusion if individual users are being tracked or not.
It's a decision, one that you can (probably) make. For me, in the EU, it's no longer a choice and I personally think regulation(GDPR) was needed because, without it, no one took user-privacy seriously.
> As for your second point, yes, that is precisely what I referred to in my original post - that we could deal with the end of IDFA / that we just want to make sure ads are effective - SKAN which provides aggregated statistics is mostly ok for us.
GDPR would also apply here. If there's an option to process less data and achieve a similar result, one should use that option and using a more invasive method(identifying individuals) for tracking would be illegal. It's called "the data minimisation principle"
