FTC reportedly set to fine Google "tens of millions" for bypassing Safari privacy settings

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
The US Federal Trade Commission is reportedly negotiating with Google over the size of a fine that will be imposed for the search giant's efforts to bypass the privacy settings of Apple's desktop and mobile Safari web browser.

In February, Google was fingered in an investigation by the Wall Street Journal for using false code to intentionally circumvent users' privacy settings via a phony invisible form submission.



The trick make it appear to the browser that the user had initiated a request, rather than just being a way for Google to install a tracking cookie so it could gain access to tracking users.

Google defended its actions at the time, saying "It?s important to stress that these advertising cookies do not collect personal information," but it also immediately stopped using the tracking code to circumvent Safari's privacy settings after the report became public.

According to a report by Bloomberg citing a "person familiar with the matter," the FTC's fine "could amount to tens of millions of dollars."

The report stated that the FTC is "preparing to allege" that Google not only deceived consumers but also "violated terms of a consent decree signed with the commission last year."

The talks between the government and Google are being kept confidential, apparently in a bid to protect the privacy of the search giant.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 39

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    The talks between the government and Google are being kept confidential, apparently in a bid to protect the privacy of the search giant.


     


    There is a very painful irony to this statement.

  • Reply 2 of 39


    I believe you have a typo in your title for this artice, the title references the FCC yet the article is actually about the FTC.

  • Reply 3 of 39
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member


    Back in the early 2000s computer experts were warning people to turn off Javascript because it was too powerful and could potentially compromise their security. Now days it is the foundation of the entire web 2.0 trend and essential to the proper functioning of almost every website, yet, the same problem still exists, it is too invasive and can potentially harm users.

  • Reply 4 of 39
    dickprinterdickprinter Posts: 1,060member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dboyer0211 View Post


    I believe you have a typo in your title for this artice, the title references the FCC yet the article is actually about the FTC.



    Ummm, friendly warning......get used to it. Proofreading is not a paramount concern to the authors of the articles.

  • Reply 5 of 39
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dboyer0211 View Post


    I believe you have a typo in your title for this artice, the title references the FCC yet the article is actually about the FTC.



    US Federal Trade Commission

  • Reply 6 of 39
    zeromeuszeromeus Posts: 182member


    YES! YES! YES!  I'd still prefer that everyone who has a Safari browser sue Google in small claims court. 1 million users x 10,000 will cost them $10 billion!  That'll stop them from such malpractice!

  • Reply 7 of 39
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zeromeus View Post

    That'll stop them from being caught doing such malpractice!


     


    Fixed.

  • Reply 8 of 39

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post


    Ummm, friendly warning......get used to it. Proofreading is not a paramount concern to the authors of the articles.





    After seeing this article, I totally believe that

  • Reply 9 of 39
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zeromeus View Post


    YES! YES! YES!  I'd still prefer that everyone who has a Safari browser sue Google in small claims court. 1 million users x 10,000 will cost them $10 billion!  That'll stop them from such malpractice!



    Good luck collecting on that.

  • Reply 10 of 39
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,234member


    What a scummy company. I hope they burn.

  • Reply 11 of 39
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zeromeus View Post


    YES! YES! YES!  I'd still prefer that everyone who has a Safari browser sue Google in small claims court. 1 million users x 10,000 will cost them $10 billion!  That'll stop them from such malpractice!



    FWIW there were members here who found that Apple themselves were bypassing user's settings, placing cookies when the users visited Apple company sites even tho Safari was set to prohibit them. Perhaps that's why Apple hasn't yet closed the hole that allowed it to happen?


     


    Certainly doesn't excuse Google, particularly since they were already on the FTC's radar, but if it was such a concern shouldn't Apple patch the security hole? The only thing I had seen mentioned is that they would consider patching it. An odd response IMO, since there are others besides Google using the same exploit. User's Safari settings are probably still being ignored when visiting certain websites or using certain services. At least Google isn't one of them any longer.

  • Reply 12 of 39

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    US Federal Trade Commission





    What are you trying to say? I am well aware that the FTC exists and that is what this article is about, if that is what your message is. My comment was about the fact that the artice is about the FTC and the title says FCC.

  • Reply 13 of 39

    Quote:


    YES! YES! YES!  I'd still prefer that everyone who has a Safari browser sue Google in small claims court. 1 million users x 10,000 will cost them $10 billion!  That'll stop them from such malpractice!



     


    Actually, the way most class actions seem to work, if that were to happen, the attorneys would get $9.9999 billion and the users would get checks for cents on the dollar. Just saying...:-)

  • Reply 14 of 39
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,727member
    zeromeus wrote: »
    YES! YES! YES!  I'd still prefer that everyone who has a Safari browser sue Google in small claims court. 1 million users x 10,000 will cost them $10 billion!  That'll stop them from such malpractice!

    Great idea!
  • Reply 15 of 39
    msimpsonmsimpson Posts: 452member


    FTC reportedly set to fine Google "tens of millions" for bypassing myPants privacy settings

  • Reply 16 of 39
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member


    Gatorguy ... "FWIW there were members here who found that Apple themselves were bypassing user's settings, placing cookies when the users visited Apple company sites even tho Safari was set to prohibit them. Perhaps that's why Apple hasn't yet closed the hole that allowed it to happen?"


     


    I don't believe this.  


     


    Some guy on a forum making an anti-Apple statement is not the same as actual evidence.  


     


    In fact that kind of behaviour is pretty much de rigeur around here. 

  • Reply 17 of 39
    emoelleremoeller Posts: 574member


    I believe the commenter is proposing using small claims courts, NOT class action lawsuits.  Small Claims courts would not necessarily require an attorney.   If anyone knows of a group or website where information on filing such a small claims lawsuit (in California the limit is $10,000) can be obtained please post it here.  The information needed would be how to properly word the claim filing and what files from the computer (backup files also) would be helpful in support of such a claim.

  • Reply 18 of 39
    curmudgeoncurmudgeon Posts: 483member


    Google gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and their only comment is:  "but they're really good cookies.  I should get to eat them if I want to".   Lame.

  • Reply 19 of 39
    jdsonicejdsonice Posts: 156member


    OK there is seriously something wrong with the last statement in this report. 


     


    The government is trying to protect the privacy of the ONE company that does not care about the privacy of others?


     


    These proceedings should be televised. 


     


    As far as fines are concerned - Larry and Brian and Eric should be given 50 lashes for this. 

  • Reply 20 of 39
    hittrj01hittrj01 Posts: 753member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jdsonice View Post


    OK there is seriously something wrong with the last statement in this report. 


     


    The government is trying to protect the privacy of the ONE company that does not care about the privacy of others?


     


    These proceedings should be televised. 


     


    As far as fines are concerned - Larry and Brian and Eric should be given 50 lashes for this. 



    Who exactly is Brian? Did you mean Sergey Brin?

Sign In or Register to comment.