or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Splif

Now we are talking about ethical behavior, correct? Which is what I posted to begin with. I did not mention illegal behavior. I did not mention the FTC case in my original post. You bought all of the into the conversation to dilute the distinction between ethical & unethical behavior. So you agree with me that it was unethical behavior & they circumvented the user settings (unethical not illegal). What the hell is the rest of your post for? It's just noise.
So, ethics can only be brought up on your terms? Anyway the article had nothing to do with this statement:Your post: "You don't expect Apple to display the backbone and ethical fortitude of Google do you?  There's no 45% profit in that."So, who is deflecting here?
You seem to have issues with comprehension. There is more than one deceptive action that Google used to track users without there knowledge or permission in the FTC ruling. One of which was circumventing user settings. That is why there are phrases such as "in addition to" used by the FTC. It really doesn't matter what your thoughts are on the issue because you are attempting to dilute any unethical behavior on Googles part. We are talking about ethics here. So, you really...
Yes & they circumvented (or bypassed) that setting. I guess that somewhere in your head the other way (your spin) is less intrusive & ethical? Are you trying to say they did not know what they were doing? I guess the FTC just threw in this line to muddy up there own explanation:Despite these promises, the FTC charged that Google placed advertising tracking cookies on consumers’ computers, in many cases by circumventing the Safari browser’s default cookie-blocking setting. 
Nope wrong again. (from FTC.gov) (http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/google-will-pay-225-million-settle-ftc-charges-it-misrepresented) it was $22.5 million Google paid. Despite these promises, the FTC charged that Google placed advertising tracking cookies on consumers’ computers, in many cases by circumventing the Safari browser’s default cookie-blocking setting.  Google exploited an exception to the browser’s default setting to place a temporary cookie...
The first paragraph of the story:Google was recently caught bypassing user privacy settings on Apple's browser, Safari, and also on Microsoft's Internet Explorer. But Google claims that it was just trying to get its +1 buttons to work on Safari, and that Internet Explorer's cookie policy was "widely non-operational." 
I think this was before do not track. Why fine them then ($17 million)? I think they circumvented "block third party" users settings without the knowledge of the user but I'm pretty sure you knew this already. Why would Google pay 17 million for not doing anything that was wrong?
How about this for your "ethical" company.http://www.dailytech.com/Google+Caught+Bypassing+Safari+Internet+Explorer+Privacy+Setting+Claims+It+Did+Nothing+Wrong/article24048.htm
Here then, here is a better source...why don't you give us a history lesson?:http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=On_Xerox,_Apple_and_Progress.txt&sortOrder=Sort+by+Date&characters=Bruce+Horn
So give them close to nothing to start with &  they will stick around until you give them less than that?
New Posts  All Forums: