Google seems to be doubling down on its efforts to promote the Privacy Sandbox as an alternative to the HTTP cookie. In a blog post, Google summarizes the results of its recent listening tour.

I read this as an indication that Google has started to move beyond the “discuss, collaborate and collectively innovate” portion of the Privacy Sandbox proceedings, and is now focusing efforts on advocacy around the viability of the Sandbox. 

To that end, Google probably doesn’t need to convince ad-tech companies of anything. Rather, it just needs to convince the UK Competition and Markets Authority (UK CMA) that the Privacy Sandbox is “pretty good;” that the existing situation with cookies is bad, and will continue to get worse; and that Google is much more open and collaborative than Apple (and maybe CMA should have a look at Apple’s approach).

To that end, Google is sharing the four tenets in this blog post to describe what Google “believes we must strive for as an industry.” It’s really important to pay attention to the way that Google is framing this discussion — particularly the implied comparison to Apple’s approach.

Are people in our industry really having a dialogue with Google? I’m not sure. I know a number of companies that have received rather pointed questions from Google asking for confidential business information (typically with artificial timelines seemingly designed to create urgency).

Your mileage may vary. But in my experience, when Google talks about having a dialogue with the industry, what they really mean is that they get to ask questions and try to get as much intel as they can. And all I seem to receive in response is a restatement of the talking points from Google’s latest press release.  

Few would argue with any of the core tenets. But equally, there is a lot of Google-speak here, so I will try to translate.

Tenet 1: Privacy and access to information should be universal

In other words, Google doesn’t think it’s fair when Apple cuts off data to everyone else while Apple keeps all the data. The Privacy Sandbox is designed to enable non-Googlers to access some data. But the real question is whether Google is providing equal access to data here. Is Google going to play by the same rules of the privacy sandbox? That has never been clear to me, despite Google’s repeated assurances.

These rules certainly do not apply to Google’s O/O properties, and I suspect that Google has been building a number of different pipes designed to leverage impressions from premium publishers. Whatever is left over will be relegated to the Privacy Sandbox.

Tenet 2: Viable alternatives are a prerequisite for real and durable privacy

Translation: Google thinks that Apple’s brute-force approach does not create viable alternatives for the marketplace, and the marketplace’s attempt to circumvent Apple’s controls are even worse for privacy. This allows Google to claim that it is providing alternatives (whether those alternatives are viable or not is in the eye of the beholder).

But it also allows Google to paint the use of probabilistic IDs and HEM/UIDs as being bad for privacy without really having to show their math. We as an industry need to challenge Google to demonstrate how the Sandbox is really better for privacy and the ad-supported marketplace. 

Tenet 3 – Solutions need to provide technical protections for privacy

Google recognizes that privacy policies are too complex for most users, and that the only way to keep users safe is through privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs). It’s hard to argue with the goal of simplifying things for consumers and adopting PETs.

But then Google attempts to frame the criticism of the Privacy Sandbox proposals as falling into one of two camps — either the Sandbox doesn’t go far enough, or it goes too far in terms of protecting privacy. This is an old trick used by politicians. The idea is that if half the people say you have done too much, and the other half say you haven’t done enough, then you are probably in the right place. By using this technique, Google is presenting us all with a false choice. We need to challenge Google on this as well. 

Tenet 4 – Solutions must be built in the open, in partnership with the industry

In other words, Google is collaborative in its process, while Apple is not. I acknowledge that Google’s approach is certainly more open than Apple’s approach. But that doesn’t really mean that either approach is “good” (however you want to quantify that).

But here is the money line from this post: “while we strive to build alignment, we will continue to move forward – because the history of technology has shown that progress can’t always wait on consensus.”

In other words, Google is moving forward with or without the approval of the rest of the industry. Many of us are assuming that the CMA will not allow Google to move forward with cookie depreciation until or unless there is a viable alternative. And that’s where Google is really starting to push the narrative.

Cookies are not very good anyway, which makes the Privacy Sandbox seem better by comparison

It is helpful to read Google’s blog post in conjunction with the recent AdExchanger piece by Google’s Joey Trotz on the Privacy Sandbox privacy team. Trotz uses a Google-conducted survey of 246 ad-tech companies and ad agencies in order to make the following points: (a) cookie match rates are horrible, (b) the poor cookie syncing rates are costing ad-tech companies money, so ergo…(c) Privacy Sandbox is a viable alternative.

The UK CMA is still accepting feedback on Google’s Privacy Commitments. If you have questions or concerns about the way Google is framing things, now would be a good time to reach to the CMA and provide confidential feedback. 

Google seems to be doubling down on its efforts to promote the Privacy Sandbox as an alternative to the HTTP cookie. In a blog post, Google summarizes the results of its recent listening tour.