Google agrees to pay largest fine in FTC history for bypassing Safari privacy settings [u]

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 90
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post



    "Do no evil." - Google


    "Don't use quotation marks when you don't know the actual line you're quoting" (TM)

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 62 of 90
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

    "Don't use quotation marks when you don't know the actual line you're quoting" (TM)


     


    "Not sure you can trademark a quote."


                                   —Tallest Skil?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 63 of 90
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,769member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


     


    Advertise whatever you want JUST DON'T GATHER INFORMATION ABOUT ME TO TARGET IT.



    You may have to forgo Apple Maps then too, as their partner Yelp (along with others) is going to deliver targeted ads/results to you based on your exact location and user profile. Can you opt out of location tracking and still use Apple maps? I dunno but I doubt it. Can you get Yelp results without agreeing to their privacy policies? Probably not.


     


    http://www.yelp.com/static?country=US&p=privacy


     


    ...Hill60, here it is for Australia in case there's any difference in what they collect and use.


    http://www.yelp.com.au/static?p=privacy&country=AU

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 64 of 90
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Ball so hard muthaf$#@ers wanna fine me, first ni**as gotta find me. What's $22.5 M to a muthaf@#$er like me? Can you please remind me?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 65 of 90
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Ah, but they didn't. That was specifically stated on the radio; they did not admit to anything but simply paid. Payment doesn't imply guilt.



     


    From the article it seems to be, "We'll pay the fine only if you say we aren't guilty" in much the same way as in the WiFi tapping case.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 66 of 90
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    You may have to forgo Apple Maps then too, as their partner Yelp (along with others) is going to deliver targeted ads/results to you based on your exact location and user profile. Can you opt out of location tracking and still use Apple maps? I dunno but I doubt it. Can you get Yelp results without agreeing to their privacy policies? Probably not.


     


    http://www.yelp.com/static?country=US&p=privacy


     


    ...Hill60, here it is for Australia in case there's any difference in what they collect and use.


    http://www.yelp.com.au/static?p=privacy&country=AU



     


    There's a difference between opting in to something in order to use it and being forced into it against your will, the laws of the land and the specific agreement Google made with the government that they would abide by privacy laws and honour consumer requests to not track them.


     


    "Not guilty" but fined, what sort of bullshit is that?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 67 of 90
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

    From the article it seems to be, "We'll pay the fine only if you say we aren't guilty" in much the same way as in the WiFi tapping case.


     


    And frigging screw that, you know? Not only was the fine 20x too small, they don't even have to say they did it.





    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

    "Not guilty" but fined, what sort of bullshit is that?


     


    Were Apple and the publishers (rather, the publishers who paid up) guilty of what they were charged? 


     


    Was Apple guilty of stealing the 'iPad' name in China?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 68 of 90
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    jungmark wrote: »
    how soon until all your "private" google services (+, mail, etc.) be accidentally made available to the general public.

    As soon as Google figures out how to make money from it and how to get it past the regulators.

    sockrolid wrote: »
    $22.5 million is now the current record.  But, as we all know, records are meant to be broken.
    I wonder how big Google's next privacy rights-related fine will be...

    That's the key. While $22 M is a laughably small fine, the fact that it's a record says that if Google messes up again soon, the number may go up significantly.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 69 of 90
    rayconraycon Posts: 33member



    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
    There is a partial solution, and that is to boycott Google. The problem is, they're ubiquitous. You would find it very difficult to avoid them. I like the idea of paying per infringement: a million people = one hundred million dollars.


     
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 70 of 90


    Snakes...do no evil, my ass! I wish Apple would make their own Search.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 71 of 90
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    "This settlement is intended to provide a strong message to Google and other companies under order that their actions will be under close scrutiny and that the Commission will respond to violations quickly and vigorously."


    That may be the intent but it's nothing more than an extremely minor irritant.


    Google says (in the voice of Cartman) "Whatever! I do what I want!"

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 72 of 90


    Google lies to users, harvests their data, makes untold amounts of money from that, and when caught…….?


     


    One drop of blood in exchange for a 'get out of jail free' card….


     


    $22 million? For Google? That's supposed to hurt. Really. And the agreement of "denial of wrongdoing"? 


     


    Wait... How does Google get to negotiate ANYTHING here? They ADMITTED to ignoring the rules. Hold them RESPONSIBLE. NO DENIAL. PERIOD.


     


    Pay MORE. Be Censured. Pointed to as an example and consequence of WRONGDOING.


     


    If this has little consequence, if they earn more by breaking the rules, then everybody will start doing it… it's a free for all. 


     


    This sets such a bad precedent. Never mind that it's the "largest fine" ever… that's a meaningless statistic.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 73 of 90
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member
    Goocrosoft will laugh this off just like MS laughed off the IE fines. Long live Goocrosoft!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 74 of 90
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member


    It's a bit of a drop in the ocean with respect to the web privacy problem. I have Safari 6 sending out the "do not track" header with each page request and yet I have 305 websites storing cookies on my computer, even though I regularly visit about 15. In other words 290 advertising companies are tracking me and targeting ads for a few free page views.


     


    I can see it happen too. One day I Google for an overseas holiday, and then miraculously for the rest of the week, all the other "unrelated" sites I visit are showing special prices on plane tickets.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 75 of 90
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 7,123member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rednival View Post


     


    The browser is open source and everyone can see what the code is doing.  Exploiting users through the browser is a low I am sure Google wouldn't sink to.



     


    Android is "open source" too, that doesn't mean you have access to all of it.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 76 of 90
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 7,123member


    The fine itself is, of course, pathetically small. The fact that they didn't have to admit guilt is a more than a bit ridiculous, although, in fact, paying the fine will be seen by the public as an admission of guilt -- the public is quite familiar with this little corporate dance.


     


    The real damage to Google is the tarnished reputation it comes out of this with. Pretty much all the major news outlets have been giving this prominent coverage, and it's being reported that, "Google lied to consumers." That's a good solid body blow that they won't recover from before the end of the round. As they get hit with more and more negative publicity, from more and more lies and criminal behavior, the public perception of Google will gradually shift to a more realistic view: Google is not your friend.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 77 of 90
    rednivalrednival Posts: 331member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    Android is "open source" too, that doesn't mean you have access to all of it.



     


    I suppose if you sincerely believe Google will throw in some code to do something nefarious in the release of Chrome, avoid it.


     


    Personally, I am not that paranoid of Google....yet.  I think cookies are demonized and people believe they are far more destructive and evil than they actually are, but that doesn't change the fact that Google broke an agreement and LIED about how to fix it.  The lying is the the thing that gets me more than the tracking.  That's messed up and they deserve the fine and it is why they got the fine (if I understand the article).  I won't even argue about the "evil" tag.  Call lying it what it is.


     


    It is not difficult to detect when software is phoning home and sending private information.  Seeing what is sent can be more tricky, but detecting the transmission isn't.  It wouldn't only be underhanded and evil for Google to do something like that, it would be utterly and completely stupid.  They would get caught.  There are far too many people watching Google like a hawk.  That isn't to say anyone that boycotts Chrome is wrong.  The world needs Google conspiracy theorist because it gives me peace of mind.  I know they'll pounce them when and if they doing something screwed up (like the blunder that cost them this fine).


     


    My point isn't about apologizing for Google or defending Chrome but more about accuracy.  Chrome has never been found to be doing anything underhanded, and if it is ever suspected of doing something, you'll know.  That said, use whatever browser you are comfortable with.  There's absolutely no reason to use Chrome (or any Google product or service) if you're uncomfortable with doing so.  


     


    If you like Chrome though and prefer it, I don't think this is a reason enough to drop it.  But that's just me...and if that makes me a "Google licker", so be it.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 78 of 90
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member


    deleted

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 79 of 90

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post




    According to the FireFox CookieMonster plugin (I'm sure there's an equivalent for Safari, no?), in addition to the cookies AppleInsider.com uses itself there are also attempts to set cookies by seven third parties.


     


    1. What specific information about you as an individual does Google's use of cookies obtain that those other six don't?


    2. Why do you spend so much time on a site that also uses Google cookies?


    3. Have you ever produced an ad-supported web site?


    4. If cookie control is important to you why do you choose not to simply use a good cookie-blocker plugin?





     


    You ask questions that only a person that understands what a cookie actually is and does would understand.


     


    Google's mistakes were exploiting a browser and lying about the fix.  The fact that they lied about cookies makes it a PR nightmare because the public is SO paranoid about cookies because they have absolutely no clue about what they do.  The media just feeds the paranoia because they discuss the "tracking" but never really elaborate what is tracked or how.  If you're mad about the cookies themselves, you better be mad at everyone in Internet advertising.  Especially be mad at Facebook.  Everyone does exactly what Google did by using third-party cookies, and Facebook goes beyond anything Google does with the cookie itself.  


     


    But Facebook doesn't have agreements with the FTC, nor have they (so far) lied about how to avoid being tracked.  So Google doesn't get a free pass and they don't deserve slack.  Just realize what they are attempting to do with third party cookies is the norm.  Exploiting a browser loop hole to do it and lying about the fix is where Google deviated from the norm and got themselves fined- and really bad PR.


     


    [EDIT] 


    Keep in mind I am not defending Google.  All I am saying is if you want to get up in arms about tracking cookies, realize you have to lump Microsoft, Yahoo, maybe even Apple (not entirely sure how the advertising features in iOS work- if they don't track anything- good for them) in with Google.  FTC is not fining Google for placing tracking cookies, but for doing it when user has requested that they not be tracked.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 80 of 90
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,769member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rednival View Post


    But Facebook doesn't have agreements with the FTC, nor have they (so far) lied about how to avoid being tracked.  



    Facebook is also under an FTC compliance order. I'll assume that the FTC had no issue with bypassing Safari settings as they've not made any issue of Facebook 9and others) using the same or similar exploit. The FTC's fine was due to Google's statement on their applicable privacy explanations page that if Safari users already had settings to discard cookies then no further action was needed. That wasn't correct. Seemingly the FTC was not too concerned with the actual bypassing of user settings as that's not what the fine was for.


     


    In essence, bypass all you want but don't tell users flawed instructions on how to avoid it. At least that's the way I see it. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.