Google reportedly ignoring Safari users' privacy settings to better track its ads [u]



  • Reply 101 of 106
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 11,832moderator
    Originally Posted by quinney View Post

    This is the essence of the matter, in my opinion. Arguing that Google really does protect people's privacy, by citing their published privacy policy, is therefore a "begging the question" logical fallacy.

    Concise and very well said!
  • Reply 102 of 106
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 15,785member
    Originally Posted by quinney View Post

    This is the essence of the matter, in my opinion. Arguing that Google really does protect people's privacy, by citing their published privacy policy, is therefore a "begging the question" logical fallacy.

    Since Google's methods and procedures for protecting user's privacy and adhering to their published policy is monitored by an independent outside auditor in conjunction with rules set up by order of the US Government I find it highly unlikely they're lying. I assume you weren't aware of that.

    Have you read both companies stated policies and if so what do you see as the big difference between them, if there is any?

    Do both companies offer a way to see what information is gathered on you? Do both offer a way to request personal information be removed? Do both offer a way to modify and control the data associated with you? Do both companies even offer any way to control, limit and customize the types of advertising directed to you?

    Find the answers to those questions, then decide which one is more honest and upfront about your privacy and offers more options to control it. (and an outside independent audit to prove they're doing what they say).

    Or just continue to hold fast to the FUD approach. "Everyone knows" so no proof needed, right?
  • Reply 103 of 106
    Originally Posted by anthropic View Post

    I don't think either the Apple contacts security failure or the Google cookie permission failures deserve the level of venom people spit at them. All corporations make bad decisions, they get told about them and fix the issue and try harder to avoid it, but it will always happen. I still think it is former Micro$oft employees penetrating both Apple and Google

    You can't put these two issues on the same plane.
    • Apple, in essence, forgot to ask for the users permission (a la Location/Notifications) to access their address book data. Remember, Apple doesn't benefit financially in anyway from the address book access.

    • Google, DELIBERATELY, went out of their way to circumvent privacy provisions put in place to prevent unwanted tracking so that they could benefit from that action financially.

  • Reply 104 of 106
    Originally Posted by elroth View Post

    Not that it's a big surprise, but there could be many many companies using this hack. It seems they don't even think it's wrong to purposely circumvent another company's software settings. A pox on all of them!

    Distilling it down to such a clinical response as you have makes a lot easier to accept and more difficult to see what's actually wrong.

    However when you replace "purposefuly circumvent another company's software settings" with "deliberately disregarding the end-user's express permission to not be trackable" it takes a much more sinister turn.

    If you really think that only deserves a little tiny mark against their name, that goes to show accepting people have become of this sort of dispicable action by a company.
  • Reply 105 of 106
    So, is there anyone on this forum who doesn't think Gatorguy is a Google shill at this point?

    Yes, I know it's his most fallacy-ridden, flawed-premise argument yet, but the desperation with which he defends his master is impressive, although wasted. I particularly laughed at the part where he says, "'... I'm trying to cut thru [sic] the piles of FUD..." The only piles of FUD in this thread are GG's post.

    Here's his basic argument:

    1. Apple's and Google's privacy policies have some similar wording.

    2. This means that Apple is tracking you just as much as Google. ("...look for [yourselves] at the two privacy policies," he writes.)

    3. You believe Apple isn't evil.

    4. Google is just like Apple, really

    5. Google is really good, even better than Apple, because they are subject to government mandated audits.

    Frankly, it's a little embarrassing watching GG make such a fool of himself with such a desperate and pathetic argument. But, the above is essentially his argument, so lets look at it point by point.

    1, As pointed out by others, Apple's privacy policy referred to applies to Apple's web site, Google's "privacy policy" refers to... well, pretty much everything you do on the web. Not really the same thing, is it? Seriously, GG, is that the best you have? Yes, that is the best he has, nothing. To equate "tracking" of what a user does on a single web site with what Google does on millions and millions of Web sites is the stupidest argument we've seen on these forums in quite a while.

    2. The idea that Apple (or any company) is tracking you as much as Google is really just totally absurd. It's patently false. What else needs to be said.

    3. OK, well, yes, most of us, with good reason, don't think Apple is evil.

    4. Well, no, since the first two points are ridiculously absurd, they don't add up to the fourth.

    5. All the government mandated audit is meant to insure is that Google isn't violating it's published privacy policy. It's a government mandated audit because Google was found to be violating it's own privacy policy. In other words, they really can't be trusted because they have a history of saying one thing and doing another. Their privacy policy is so vaguely worded that it isn't hard for them to beat the audit and essentially continue to do whatever they want.

    If Google is willing to hack your browser opt-out settings to track you against your will, does anyone really believe they would honor any other opt-out? Does anyone really believe they will stop at anything in their insatiable desire for personal information. A company that has time after time said one thing and done another, and broken the law multiple times.

    There are piles of FUD here, but all of it from GG. Not surprising since Google is paying him to disseminate it. But, especially in this case, his argument is so ridiculous it's laughable.

    EDIT: And this "rogue code/programmer/contractor" defense by Google is wearing more than a little thin. How many times have we heard it now. Everytime Google gets caught breaking the law or trampling on people's privacy, or doing something unethical, it's always "inadvertent", an employee out of control, and so on. The number of times we've heard this excuse, it would seem that most of their employees just do whatever they want whenever they want however they want. No one is apparently in charge of anything. At this point, all of these denials of responsibility and knowledge just don't hold water. Google knew it's developers were developing exploits to allow them to track users who turned off 3rd party cookies in Safari. It's almost certain they are doing similar things to get around anti-tracking technology elsewhere. No one should believe that this was anything but a conscious, deliberate decision on the part of Google to go Black Hat on this, and no one should believe they haven't done it before nor that they won't do it again... any chance they get.
  • Reply 106 of 106
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member
    Originally Posted by mausz View Post

    If you only count on the ethics of others to protect your property you'll be in for a shocker. I lock my car and expect the law enforcement in my area to offer enough service to discourage potential theft.

    1. I have a promise from Google that they won't steal my car.

    2. Just to be on the safe side, BMW provides me with door locks.

    3. Google discovers that the windows are made of glass, allowing them to get past the locks.

    4. You say it's BMW's fault that Google stole my car because the glass is a "vulnerability."

    5. I think that's flawed logic and strongly disagree.

Sign In or Register to comment.