Fresh off the report that Google was bypassing the privacy settings of Safari users by installing cookies that could track browsing habits, Microsoft has discovered that Google has been doing the same thing on Internet Explorer. This is not good.
According to Microsoft VP Dean Hachamovitch, after the Safari Google cookies snafu hit, the Internet Explorer team discovered that Google was “employing similar methods to get around the default privacy protections in IE and track IE users with cookies” too. Microsoft has found that Google bypasses the P3P Privacy Protection feature in IE to track users. Google is breaking the rules:
Google utilises a nuance in the P3P specification that has the effect of bypassing user preferences about cookies. The P3P specification (in an attempt to leave room for future advances in privacy policies) states that browsers should ignore any undefined policies they encounter. Google sends a P3P policy that fails to inform the browser about Google’s use of cookies and user information. Google’s P3P policy is actually a statement that it is not a P3P policy. It’s intended for humans to read even though P3P policies are designed for browsers to “read”
Basically, Google wrongfully bypasses the protection and enables its cookies to be allowed rather than blocked. Thus allowing Google to track the browsing habits of Internet Explorer users. In the mean time, Microsoft has made a Tracking Protection List to protect IE9 users from Google. The list can be found here. [IE Blog]
Update: Google’s been in touch to give us an official statement from Rachel Whetstone, Senior Vice President of Communications and Policy in retaliation to Microsoft’s blog post, which Google says “omitted import information”.
Microsoft uses a “self-declaration” protocol (known as “P3P”) dating from 2002 under which Microsoft asks websites to represent their privacy practices in machine-readable form. It is well known – including by Microsoft – that it is impractical to comply with Microsoft’s request while providing modern web functionality. We have been open about our approach, as have many other websites.
Today the Microsoft policy is widely non-operational. A 2010 research report indicated that over 11,000 websites were not issuing valid P3P policies as requested by Microsoft.
Here is some more information.
Issue has been around since 2002
For many years, Microsoft’s browser has requested every website to “self-declare” its cookies and privacy policies in machine readable form, using particular “P3P” three-letter policies.
Essentially, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser requests of websites, “Tell us what sort of functionality your cookies provide, and we’ll decide whether to allow them.” This didn’t have a huge impact in 2002 when P3P was introduced (in fact the Wall Street Journal today states that our DoubleClick ad cookies comply with Microsoft’s request), but newer cookie-based features are broken by the Microsoft implementation in IE. These include things like Facebook “Like” buttons, the ability to sign-in to websites using your Google account, and hundreds more modern web services. It is well known that it is impractical to comply with Microsoft’s request while providing this web functionality.
Today the Microsoft policy is widely non-operational.
In 2010 it was reported:
Browsers like Chrome, Firefox and Safari have simpler security settings. Instead of checking a site’s compact policy, these browsers simply let people choose to block all cookies, block only third-party cookies or allow all cookies.….
Thousands of sites don’t use valid P3P policies….A firm that helps companies implement privacy standards, TRUSTe, confirmed in 2010 that most of the websites it certifies were not using valid P3P policies as requested by Microsoft:
Despite having been around for over a decade, P3P adoption has not taken off. It’s worth noting again that less than 12 percent of the more than 3,000 websites TRUSTe certifies have a P3P compact policy. The reality is that consumers don’t, by and large, use the P3P framework to make decisions about personal information disclosure.
A 2010 research paper by Carnegie Mellon found that 11,176 of 33,139 websites were not issuing valid P3P policies as requested by Microsoft.
In the research paper, among the websites that were most frequently providing different code to that requested by Microsoft: Microsoft’s own live.com and msn.com websites.
Microsoft support website
The 2010 research paper “discovered that Microsoft’s support website recommends the use of invalid CPs (codes) as a work-around for a problem in IE.” This recommendation was a major reason that many of the 11,176 websites provided different code to the one requested by Microsoft.
Google’s provided a link that explained our practice.
Microsoft could change this today
As others are noting today, this has been well known for years.
· Privacy researcher Lauren Weinstein states: “In any case, Microsoft’s posting today, given what was already long known about IE and P3P deficiences in these regards, seems disingenuous at best, and certainly is not helping to move the ball usefully forward regarding these complex issues.”
· Chris Soghoian, a privacy researcher, points out: “Instead of fixing P3P loophole in IE that FB & Amazon exploited ……MS did nothing. Now they complain after Google uses it.”
· Even the Wall Street Journal says: “It involves a problem that has been known about for some time by Microsoft and privacy researchers….”
So there you have it. Seems Google really doesn’t like being called out over these privacy issues.












Emoji Cookies. I Repeat, Emoji Cookies.
Archaeologists Think Hidden Imperial Tomb May Be Too Deadly to Explore
Google Glass Explorer: Marketing Brilliance, or a Brag Too Far?
Yawn. All this is getting boring. People want social media sharing buttons, webmasters want ads.
Both of these clearly need to be tracked (ads maybe not so much, but would you rather see ads about something totally irrelevant to you or the site you’re on or things you’re interested in?) so I don’t see what the problem is.
There’s a huge difference between Google tracking you and some random Russian website that wants all your personal details. What exactly does Google even take? Your history, anonymously? Shame. Don’t go on anything dodgy and you’re fine.
I totally agree. I have no problem with Google tracking me as if I have to have ads I want relevant ones, and relevant search results are nice as well.
But tracking people who have been asked not to be tracked seems like a step too far. Would be interesting if Google made a statement about it. It doesn’t seem like something I would expect Google to do. They get their fair share of criticism but overall they are pretty good at privacy.
Oh wow, MICROSOFT accusing Google of not following W3C standards, haha.
As far as I can tell though, without this ‘hack’ Google’s cross domain authentication wouldn’t work properly? Things like +1 would have to resort to iframes like Facebook’s ‘Like’ button does. Logging into services on other domains like Youtube would become pretty monotonous.
Not sure that’s an excuse for breaking these pretty tentative rules, but it sure is a valid reason.
that’s one of the greatest things about having so many google products, or any company with many services: I don’t have to encounter tedious login page after tedious login page. If that is the reason, people have no need to be so up in arms…
Who on Earth let Casey Chan report this? I don’t know who’s worse between him and Taf for Google-trolling iFanboyism.
I don’t see how you can view this as trolling? He was just writing up what Microsoft claims to have discovered — there’s no spin here.
Okay, I’ll concede upon reflection that the comment was a tad melodramatic. >_<' I do feel, however, it seems like just another article attacking Google on the premise of presumptions. Admittedly, Casey does make obvious the fact that these are presumptions, and yeah, the more I read it, the more balanced it seems, tbf.
In attempt at taming the troll, I've become what I worse feared. :'(
Ha, don’t worry Glenbot — at least you’re man enough to admit your mistake, which definitely lowers your troll-level-bar
Facebook (and many other sites) are guilty of bypassing cookie protection in the same way – why is it that only Google are getting the flak for this? With all the other anti-Google articles in the press recently, me thinks there be a smear campaign a foot.