Google, as the judge writes, purports to treat user data as pseudonymous by creating a randomly generated identifier that “permits Google to recognize the particular device and its later ad-related behavior… Google insists that it has created technical barriers to ensure, for (s)WAA-off users, that pseudonymous data is delinked to a user’s identity by first performing a ‘consent check’ to determine a user’s (s)WAA settings.”
I don’t buy for even a single second that “pseudonymous” identifier numbers aren’t linked to other data and other identifying numbers. Big tech is willing to create shadow accounts even if you aren’t a user. They will absolutely link whatever data they have to you, then deny it later, call the lawyers, and have them claim a computer magic defense in court.
“We don’t store your name. The only data that’s even close to that would be your height, weight, address, medical history, a handful of biomarkers, your family member’s names, and a few other things that totally can’t be tied back to you!” - Google probably
I don’t buy for even a single second that “pseudonymous” identifier numbers aren’t linked to other data and other identifying numbers. Big tech is willing to create shadow accounts even if you aren’t a user. They will absolutely link whatever data they have to you, then deny it later, call the lawyers, and have them claim a computer magic defense in court.
“We don’t store your name. The only data that’s even close to that would be your height, weight, address, medical history, a handful of biomarkers, your family member’s names, and a few other things that totally can’t be tied back to you!” - Google probably
And what do you know, the black box that is AI is perfect for this…