I have a personal gmail and a work gmail (G Suite), each using my full name, but both run in separate browsers using the same IP address. I always wonder if Google keeps a "master record" of people and all their associations, if not for security or to work with law enforcement.
In my experience in adtech, not only can Google do this pretty accurately, but other third parties as well (e.g. DMPs and the like.) Even if they couldn't make a deterministic association, they have enough data points to make a probabilistic association with high likelihood (ex: "Given all these data points, we're 95% confident that these two people are the same. Therefore we're going to attribute the actions to the same person.")
Now, to qualify my response a bit, this isn't necessarily for security / law enforcement, but mainly for better targeting parameters. Example: frequency capping of ads (buyer specifies that you only see an ad X number of times in a given time period) or more relevant targeting (you don't see completely different ads in different browsers as if you're from two non-overlapping demographic groups.)
Facebook does this to build shadow profiles of everyone, even if they are not Facebook users. I'm sure Google does similar things. They certainly could.
IMO, that doesn't make a good trade off. The identity problem space is already super complicated due to ITP while the risk is very high. If you make mistakes, you will accidentally leak personal information to others while the benefits... are pretty minimal, probably having 1~2% more revenue from those people with dual accounts. Given that joining signed-in and signed-out identity is explicitly prohibited as a condition of Double Click acquisition, I doubt if there's any incentive to do this kind of joining for Google.
Probably. I recall Project Veritas showing hidden video of a Twitter dev speaking about databases that link all profiles of someone (using things like IPs, fingerprints, etc. to stitch the relationships together).
You're probably getting downvoted for discussing Project Veritas (which is a silly reason for downvoting IMO) but your point is still accurate: these companies are defnitely running models to create probabilistic identity models in the absence of deterministic associations.
Deterministic = I specifically say I'm person X and am logged-in.
Probabilistic = I am not logged-in on this browser, but am on the same computer, same IP, and am logged-in on a separate browser at the exact same time under name X. Therefore I'm very likely person X.
It's not silly. A source that has been often shown to fabricate evidence and post straight up lies doesn't belong on HN. Many of their videos, including the "undercover interviews" with Twitter and Google have all been shown to have been edited/cut to completely change what the person was talking about or trying to say.
Nothing coming from PV can ever again be taken with a single grain of salt.
I really hate changing the topic here, but I feel it has to be said sometimes.
It's _very_ frustrating when people immediately discredit someone or something because they don't agree with them, even if they don't have the full story.
Project Veritas does some good work, even if they're blasted in popular culture/mainstream media for being 'biased', 'alt-right', 'etc'. I bet you the downvotes you're getting are just because you mentioned Project Veritas.
They have some very out-landish views, but when they actually put people on the street or go undercover, they've revealed dirt on a lot of companies and people.
It's shocking to me to see society go from "let's look at ALL sides of the coin, no matter how egregiously offensive they are to me" to "fuck 'em, they're trash media, they suck, they shill and are racist, alt-right losers and I'm not going to look at anything they post because in my mind everything they do is bad!"
I don't even go to Project Veritas outside of what I hear in the media, but I still give it a fair look and make my own opinion.
I'm sorry but no. I'm all for looking at all sides, but Project Veritas is not that. They have done extremely shady things such as intentionally sending a fake victim to WP [0], as well as editing/slicing sentences (which they recorded without consent) to create an entirely different narrative, different from what the person was originally trying to convey [1].
Even a single one of these incidents is enough to completely throw every thing you've done and said into doubt, let alone the half a dozen that PV has behind it. There is absolutely no way you can take anything they say or do serious after they've been caught times and times again lying and misleading.
It has absolutely nothing to do with how outlanding their views are, and everything to do with the fact that what they say or do cannot be trusted. I used to in the beginning, but they are way past being given a "fair look".
Definitely. They have logic that links data sets, all it takes is one slip up for them to know youre the same person, probably with levels of probability about whether you are the same person.
