How This Briefing Works
This report opens with key findings, then maps the gaps between what Google Cloud discloses and what BLACKOUT observed at runtime. From there: what it means for your organization, what to do about it, and the detection data and evidence underneath.
Key Findings
Pre-Consent Activity
Google Cloud was observed loading and executing before user consent was obtained on 6% of sites where it was detected.
Claims vs. Observed Behavior
Pending Analysis
“Claims extraction pending”
CDT analysis required for GCP Terms, Cloud Data Processing Addendum, and privacy disclosures
What This Means For You
What To Do About It
Role-specific actions based on observed behavior
If You Use Google Cloud
- →Audit GCP Cloud Data Processing Addendum for fingerprinting restrictions and cross-product data sharing limits
- →Review privacy policy for GCP tracking disclosures separate from core service functionality
- →Assess GTM integration for undeclared tracking tags loaded via GCP libraries
- →Map persistent storage usage by GCP SDKs and retention policies
If You're Evaluating Google Cloud
- →Server-side GCP integration options to eliminate client-side surveillance SDKs
- →Alternative cloud providers with minimal tracking footprint (AWS, Azure, DigitalOcean)
- →Client-side SDK sandboxing to prevent cross-domain sync and GTM abuse
- →Consent-gated GCP loading architecture
Negotiation Leverage
- →GCP Data Processing Addendum permits Google to use customer data for service improvement but lacks clear limits on cross-product identity resolution
- →Client-side fingerprinting and behavioral tracking not disclosed in GCP service documentation, discovered via runtime detection
- →GTM abuse patterns suggest undeclared tag injection beyond customer-configured tracking
- →Persistent storage tactics exceed functional requirements for cloud services, indicate long-term profiling infrastructure
Runtime Detections
BLACKOUT observed this vendor's JavaScript executing in a live browser and classified each hostile behavior using our BTI-C (Behavioral Threat Intelligence — Capability) taxonomy. These are not theoretical risks — each code below was triggered by something we watched this vendor's code actually do.
Evasion infrastructure, auditor bypass
Impact: GCP scripts employ obfuscation and anti-detection to conceal tracking embedded within cloud service functions.
Keystroke/mouse tracking
Impact: Captures interaction patterns and timing signatures across GCP service usage for cross-product user profiling.
Full session replay
Impact: Records page activity and cloud service interactions beyond functional requirements for platform services.
Identity stitching
Impact: Synchronizes device fingerprints and user identifiers across Google properties and GCP customer sites.
Ignoring CMP signals
Impact: Tracking initiates on GCP SDK initialization, before cloud service interaction or user consent signal.
Device identification
Impact: Collects browser, device, and behavioral fingerprints tied to Google account identifiers and GCP service usage.
Long-lived identifiers
Impact: Deploys localStorage, IndexedDB, and cache-based storage to maintain tracking identifiers across sessions and browser restarts.
PII deanonymization
Impact: Links GCP device fingerprints to Google's cross-product identity graph, enabling persistent tracking across web.
Container/loader (neutral)
Impact: Exploits GTM infrastructure when present to deploy additional tracking beyond declared GCP service requirements.
IOC Manifest
Indicators of compromise across 4 categories. Use for detection rules, CSP policies, or Pi-hole blocklists.
Ecosystem & Supply Chain
Evidence Artifacts
Artifacts collected during analysis, available with evidence-tier access.
Complete network capture with all requests and responses
60 detection signatures across scripts, domains, cookies, and network endpoints