Okay. So I’ll just come over to this judge’s house, take pictures, sit on the couch… It’s cool, how do you know I’m doing any real harm?
Google just received a license to break every privacy law on the books.
That's total nonsense.
The judge is absolutely correct. The plaintiffs filed a civil case which means that they have to prove harm. They were unable to do so. Harm doesn't need to be financial, although it usually is. In this case, they couldn't show any harm. Seeing an ad that's relevant for your interests rather than an unrelated ad isn't something that is, per se, harmful.
However, that doesn't mean that they have a license to break privacy laws as you claim. They received the largest fine in FTC history over this matter. If they are charged with breaking other laws and it can be proven, they would lose those, as well.
The fundamental problem is that you apparently don't understand the difference between a civil case, a criminal case, and an administrative action.
Now, if you want to argue that the fines in the criminal and administrative cases are too small to make a difference, I'd agree. But equating civil and criminal cases does nothing to further intelligent discussion.
Google was already fined an FTC record $22.5MM. If that's not enough for Google to learn a lesson, this judgement means absolutely nothing either way.
It wasn’t. THEY STILL DO IT. $22,500,000 is NOTHING to them.
Originally Posted by jragosta
The plaintiffs filed a civil case which means that they have to prove harm. They were unable to do so. Harm doesn't need to be financial, although it usually is. In this case, they couldn't show any harm. Seeing an ad that's relevant for your interests rather than an unrelated ad isn't something that is, per se, harmful.
I was going to pose a rhetorical question, asking if you believed their inability to show harm meant that no harm had been done, but apparently you do actually think that, given the last sentence there.
Not a big fan of “the means justify the ends”, myself.
“Hey, I broke into your house last month and saw you liked R. Atkinson Fox prints, so I got you a new one for your birthday!”
Nah - that's wrong, I agree.
Dickprinter and this judge (cough) thinks it's ok because they've already paid a fine, oh wait it was a real big one !
Next time they should receive a lesser fine - hell, maybe they need counselling .... ¿
The judge never said any such thing. The judge said that the plaintiffs didn't prove any significant harm. That's not the same as saying it's OK.
I was going to pose a rhetorical question, asking if you believed their inability to show harm meant that no harm had been done, but apparently you do actually think that, given the last sentence there.
Not a big fan of “the means justify the ends”, myself.
“Hey, I broke into your house last month and saw you liked R. Atkinson Fox prints, so I got you a new one for your birthday!”
I never said that no harm had been done. I said that the plaintiffs apparently failed to prove any harm, or if they did, it was de minimis.
Personally, I think they should have the book thrown at them and that the sanctions and fines should be several orders of magnitude higher than they were. But that doesn't change the fact that the plaintiffs did not meet the legal requirements for winning a civil suit.
And please stop with the stupid analogies. Breaking and entering is a criminal violation.
The judge is absolutely correct. The plaintiffs filed a civil case which means that they have to prove harm. They were unable to do so. Harm doesn't need to be financial, although it usually is. In this case, they couldn't show any harm. Seeing an ad that's relevant for your interests rather than an unrelated ad isn't something that is, per se, harmful.
The problem with your reasoning is simple: in civilized countries, privacy is considered a good in itself, and personal information and identity are considered property. Therefore someone who has possession of private information without consent stole something from you.
Therefore the loss of privacy automatically, without further proof, constitutes harm. Privacy should be treated like a civil right. I mean, what "harm" is done to some person when they denied the right to vote? No financial loss, no pain, no nothing... False: the person was denied their right to exercise participation as a citizen, they were violated in their civil rights, and thus the entity obstructing their ability to vote is liable.
Even if the value of that information is only $0.000001, multiply that by hundreds of millions of users and billions of clicks, and it adds up.
Further, at least in European law, there's the concept of "unjustified enrichment", which would certainly apply. An example: you enter the wrong bank account number, and the money goes to the wrong person. That person can't just keep it and say "though luck for the sender", because that would be unjustified enrichment. So even if Google claims this was all accidental, they earned money with that accident that they shouldn't have earned, and that money needs to be paid back, one way or the other.
In short: the problem here is, that privacy is not considered a good in itself by this court, meaning the loss of privacy has to lead to some derived harm which then has to be proven to have occurred, instead of recognizing privacy as a good, the loss of which constitutes harm in itself.
Redarded judgement, if only "loss of money or property" constitutes harm.
I guess under this judge's view, the only reason you can't kill someone or beat them into a pulp is because hospital and funeral costs constitute "loss of money"...
From a "civil law" perspective that is fairly close. However there are some pretty harsh consequences under criminal law.
In this case Google was found guilty by the FTC and fined. The civil case required damages to be shown. In the absence of those the Judge was correct.
The problem with your reasoning is simple: in civilized countries, privacy is considered a good in itself, and personal information and identity are considered property. Therefore someone who has possession of private information without consent stole something from you.
I don't think the claim was that Google stole personal information. Instead it was that they set a third-party cookie against the default Safari settings or specific users wishes.
The problem with your reasoning is simple: in civilized countries, privacy is considered a good in itself, and personal information and identity are considered property. Therefore someone who has possession of private information without consent stole something from you.
First, Google was not in possession of something they stole from you. They put a cookie on YOUR computer, they didn't take anything.
Regardless, what you are describing is handled as a criminal trespass, not a civil case.
....The plaintiffs had not "shown a loss of money or property from Google's actions....
So it's OK to break into someone's house by stuffing paper towels in the door-jam-locks so that when the "user" locks the door, it doesn't lock; unknown to them.
Then you can rummage around inside the house to your hearts content.
So it's OK to break into someone's house by stuffing paper towels in the door-jam-locks so that when the "user" locks the door, it doesn't lock; unknown to them.
Then you can rummage around inside the house to your hearts content.
The analogies are really out of control on this thread.
Do you think that if you tried a little harder that you might come up with an even more ridiculous analogy?
Text of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
Shouldn't private browsing habits be considered part of ones persons or effects? Don't we have a right to not be tracked?
In the US the answer appears to be a resounding no. Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. all track much more then just cookies and they also share this info with the government.
Breaking (the rules set by the browser) and entering (cookies, onto the computer) is a criminal violation, you say… Hmm.
Thank you for the previous clarification, though.
It's important to note that this is a civil case. I was going to mention trespassing, but jragosta got that one. The actual outcome of the case here isn't about whether they did anything wrong. It's whether the users can prove damages that would be rectified through monetary compensation. Even in a class action lawsuit, individual plaintiffs can opt out. While they have their place, the lawyers are typically the only ones who are suitably compensated for any loss. I'll find some examples if you like.
The problem with your reasoning is simple: in civilized countries, privacy is considered a good in itself, and personal information and identity are considered property. Therefore someone who has possession of private information without consent stole something from you.
I don't think the claim was that Google stole personal information. Instead it was that they set a third-party cookie against the default Safari settings or specific users wishes.
The point of using cookies is to track user's behavior. In other words, Google collects my private web usage habits and preferences, my likes and dislikes being my personal secrets and information, which by means of my preferences I clearly stated that I have no intention sharing with a third party.
Their algorithms thus find a way to steal the information from me, which is the information about my likes, dislikes and browsing habits.
Them having information I don't want them to have is a violation of my privacy, with privacy being a valuable asset in and by itself, which has been taken away from me, which constitutes harm done.
Yes, not monetary harm, but harm nonetheless. The problem with the decision at hand is that it considers only harm something that's monetary or tangible property.
The point of using cookies is to track user's behavior. In other words, Google collects my private web usage habits and preferences, my likes and dislikes being my personal secrets and information, which by means of my preferences I clearly stated that I have no intention sharing with a third party.
Their algorithms thus find a way to steal the information from me, which is the information about my likes, dislikes and browsing habits.
Them having information I don't want them to have is a violation of my privacy, with privacy being a valuable asset in and by itself, which has been taken away from me, which constitutes harm done.
Yes, not monetary harm, but harm nonetheless. The problem with the decision at hand is that it considers only harm something that's monetary or tangible property.
Right On, rcfa !
It's the individuals privacy that's at stake here. Not Goog's self assumed right to be able to data mine so that it can make money.
I'm not trying to be overly critical here - but sometimes it seems to me that the American legal system gets convoluted like this ruling.
It seems to contradict the original court case that found Goog in breach.
What's the message ? It's ok ? it's not ok ? It's ok if you're prepared to pay ?
Too messy - is it abuse of privacy or not ?
Text of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
Shouldn't private browsing habits be considered part of ones persons or effects? Don't we have a right to not be tracked?
The 4th Amendment means that you're secure from unreasonable searches and seizures BY THE GOVERNMENT. It does not regulate Google's behavior. That is controlled by the law.
The point of using cookies is to track user's behavior. In other words, Google collects my private web usage habits and preferences, my likes and dislikes being my personal secrets and information, which by means of my preferences I clearly stated that I have no intention sharing with a third party.
Their algorithms thus find a way to steal the information from me, which is the information about my likes, dislikes and browsing habits.
Them having information I don't want them to have is a violation of my privacy, with privacy being a valuable asset in and by itself, which has been taken away from me, which constitutes harm done.
Yes, not monetary harm, but harm nonetheless. The problem with the decision at hand is that it considers only harm something that's monetary or tangible property.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Google should be able to do what they did with impunity. I'm simply arguing that under U.S. law, you must be able to prove harm in order to win a civil case. That doesn't mean that there was no harm - just that the plaintiffs did not prove any harm.
One can, for example, sue for slander even when proving quantitative harm is difficult. But you still have to prove harm - which the plaintiffs didn't do.
Comments
That's total nonsense.
The judge is absolutely correct. The plaintiffs filed a civil case which means that they have to prove harm. They were unable to do so. Harm doesn't need to be financial, although it usually is. In this case, they couldn't show any harm. Seeing an ad that's relevant for your interests rather than an unrelated ad isn't something that is, per se, harmful.
However, that doesn't mean that they have a license to break privacy laws as you claim. They received the largest fine in FTC history over this matter. If they are charged with breaking other laws and it can be proven, they would lose those, as well.
The fundamental problem is that you apparently don't understand the difference between a civil case, a criminal case, and an administrative action.
Now, if you want to argue that the fines in the criminal and administrative cases are too small to make a difference, I'd agree. But equating civil and criminal cases does nothing to further intelligent discussion.
It wasn’t. THEY STILL DO IT. $22,500,000 is NOTHING to them.
I was going to pose a rhetorical question, asking if you believed their inability to show harm meant that no harm had been done, but apparently you do actually think that, given the last sentence there.
Not a big fan of “the means justify the ends”, myself.
“Hey, I broke into your house last month and saw you liked R. Atkinson Fox prints, so I got you a new one for your birthday!”
The judge never said any such thing. The judge said that the plaintiffs didn't prove any significant harm. That's not the same as saying it's OK.
I never said that no harm had been done. I said that the plaintiffs apparently failed to prove any harm, or if they did, it was de minimis.
Personally, I think they should have the book thrown at them and that the sanctions and fines should be several orders of magnitude higher than they were. But that doesn't change the fact that the plaintiffs did not meet the legal requirements for winning a civil suit.
And please stop with the stupid analogies. Breaking and entering is a criminal violation.
Breaking (the rules set by the browser) and entering (cookies, onto the computer) is a criminal violation, you say… Hmm.
Thank you for the previous clarification, though.
The judge is absolutely correct. The plaintiffs filed a civil case which means that they have to prove harm. They were unable to do so. Harm doesn't need to be financial, although it usually is. In this case, they couldn't show any harm. Seeing an ad that's relevant for your interests rather than an unrelated ad isn't something that is, per se, harmful.
The problem with your reasoning is simple: in civilized countries, privacy is considered a good in itself, and personal information and identity are considered property. Therefore someone who has possession of private information without consent stole something from you.
Therefore the loss of privacy automatically, without further proof, constitutes harm. Privacy should be treated like a civil right. I mean, what "harm" is done to some person when they denied the right to vote? No financial loss, no pain, no nothing... False: the person was denied their right to exercise participation as a citizen, they were violated in their civil rights, and thus the entity obstructing their ability to vote is liable.
Even if the value of that information is only $0.000001, multiply that by hundreds of millions of users and billions of clicks, and it adds up.
Further, at least in European law, there's the concept of "unjustified enrichment", which would certainly apply. An example: you enter the wrong bank account number, and the money goes to the wrong person. That person can't just keep it and say "though luck for the sender", because that would be unjustified enrichment. So even if Google claims this was all accidental, they earned money with that accident that they shouldn't have earned, and that money needs to be paid back, one way or the other.
In short: the problem here is, that privacy is not considered a good in itself by this court, meaning the loss of privacy has to lead to some derived harm which then has to be proven to have occurred, instead of recognizing privacy as a good, the loss of which constitutes harm in itself.
Redarded judgement, if only "loss of money or property" constitutes harm.
I guess under this judge's view, the only reason you can't kill someone or beat them into a pulp is because hospital and funeral costs constitute "loss of money"...
From a "civil law" perspective that is fairly close. However there are some pretty harsh consequences under criminal law.
In this case Google was found guilty by the FTC and fined. The civil case required damages to be shown. In the absence of those the Judge was correct.
I don't think the claim was that Google stole personal information. Instead it was that they set a third-party cookie against the default Safari settings or specific users wishes.
First, Google was not in possession of something they stole from you. They put a cookie on YOUR computer, they didn't take anything.
Regardless, what you are describing is handled as a criminal trespass, not a civil case.
Except that it's not breaking and entering. Look up the law instead of posting stupid things.
If you want to make an analogy, it's closest to criminal trespass - which is why it is best handled via criminal or administrative action - as it was.
‘Course not.
So it's OK to break into someone's house by stuffing paper towels in the door-jam-locks so that when the "user" locks the door, it doesn't lock; unknown to them.
Then you can rummage around inside the house to your hearts content.
No harm done.
The analogies are really out of control on this thread.
Do you think that if you tried a little harder that you might come up with an even more ridiculous analogy?
The analogies are really out of control on this thread.
Do you think that if you tried a little harder that you might come up with an even more ridiculous analogy?
I was 100%-sold on my breaking-and-entering analogy rant, but I *am* guilty of not noticing the civil vs criminal court-actions etc etc.
Some over-reaction by me? Maybe. But the "don't be evil" company deserves some heavy-handedness, I think.
Shouldn't private browsing habits be considered part of ones persons or effects? Don't we have a right to not be tracked?
In the US the answer appears to be a resounding no. Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. all track much more then just cookies and they also share this info with the government.
Breaking (the rules set by the browser) and entering (cookies, onto the computer) is a criminal violation, you say… Hmm.
Thank you for the previous clarification, though.
It's important to note that this is a civil case. I was going to mention trespassing, but jragosta got that one. The actual outcome of the case here isn't about whether they did anything wrong. It's whether the users can prove damages that would be rectified through monetary compensation. Even in a class action lawsuit, individual plaintiffs can opt out. While they have their place, the lawyers are typically the only ones who are suitably compensated for any loss. I'll find some examples if you like.
"Speaking of PRISM's, I wonder if this Matthew Soble has also joined in the class action lawsuit against the NSA for tracking his web activities."
Ummm what are you talking about? What a foolish statement. Google is now on equal footing with a government agency?
The problem with your reasoning is simple: in civilized countries, privacy is considered a good in itself, and personal information and identity are considered property. Therefore someone who has possession of private information without consent stole something from you.
I don't think the claim was that Google stole personal information. Instead it was that they set a third-party cookie against the default Safari settings or specific users wishes.
The point of using cookies is to track user's behavior. In other words, Google collects my private web usage habits and preferences, my likes and dislikes being my personal secrets and information, which by means of my preferences I clearly stated that I have no intention sharing with a third party.
Their algorithms thus find a way to steal the information from me, which is the information about my likes, dislikes and browsing habits.
Them having information I don't want them to have is a violation of my privacy, with privacy being a valuable asset in and by itself, which has been taken away from me, which constitutes harm done.
Yes, not monetary harm, but harm nonetheless. The problem with the decision at hand is that it considers only harm something that's monetary or tangible property.
Right On, rcfa !
It's the individuals privacy that's at stake here. Not Goog's self assumed right to be able to data mine so that it can make money.
I'm not trying to be overly critical here - but sometimes it seems to me that the American legal system gets convoluted like this ruling.
It seems to contradict the original court case that found Goog in breach.
What's the message ? It's ok ? it's not ok ? It's ok if you're prepared to pay ?
Too messy - is it abuse of privacy or not ?
The 4th Amendment means that you're secure from unreasonable searches and seizures BY THE GOVERNMENT. It does not regulate Google's behavior. That is controlled by the law.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Google should be able to do what they did with impunity. I'm simply arguing that under U.S. law, you must be able to prove harm in order to win a civil case. That doesn't mean that there was no harm - just that the plaintiffs did not prove any harm.
One can, for example, sue for slander even when proving quantitative harm is difficult. But you still have to prove harm - which the plaintiffs didn't do.