Slashdot Mirror
Google Facing FTC Fine Over Safari Privacy Breach
suraj.sun writes "Bloomberg is reporting on Google's negotiation with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission over 'how big a fine, which could amount to more than $10 million, it will have to pay for its breach of Apple's Safari browser. The fine would be the first by the FTC for a violation of Internet privacy as the agency steps up enforcement of the Web.' Last year, Google agreed to a settlement in which the FTC would monitor Google's privacy practices for an extended period of time. 'The 20-year settlement bars Google from misrepresenting how it handles user information and requires the company to follow policies that protect consumer data in new products.' This February, Google was found to be bypassing privacy controls in Safari by making the browser think a user was submitting a form, when they actually weren't. '(The code used by Google was part of its program to place the "+1" button in advertisements.) At the time, the company issued a statement saying that the circumvention wasn't intentional, but privacy groups were still quick to file complaints with the FTC over Google's actions. That was quickly followed by a class-action lawsuit and an investigation by European regulators.'"
They were using a legitimate feature of the browser. It's not as if they were hacking/etc.. anyone can do this and submitting forms has been around since the web was born. If Apple wants to block cookies on 3rd party form submissions they can go right ahead. Until they do the blame is on Apple not Google.
AccountKiller
If you forget to lock your car door and someone steals your car, should you be arrested as an accessory to grand theft?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
(Guy who thinks that copyright infringement is stealing)
Safari lets the user choose in which situations cookies are accepted from a website. One of those situations is when the user fills out a form on the website, so clearly the user has knowingly interacted with the website. Google subverted this by secretly creating a form and pretending that it was filled out by the user, tricking Safari into accepting cookies. That was no accident, that was a deliberate trick to get around the user's privacy settings.
Since Google was on the hook for previous privacy violations, and had agreed to a settlement where they agreed that the FTC should check for further violations, a fine at this time is quite correct.
Google gets big, makes powerful enemies. News at 11.
Funny how we only really vague, trivial shit gets Google in to the court room.
For all those with a clue, Google's actions are really a workaround to a broken, stupid browser privacy scheme that does nothing to protect users from the real bad guys. Just a way to fix web pages for a browser that's not standards compliant. Many times less harmless to the hackery you have to commit to get a web page to work properly in IE6.
Microsoft only got 10 years, and they were not merely spying on people but also abusing their monopoly position to drive competitors out of business. (Kinda like what Comcast is doing now with Hulu, Amazon video streaming.) Google should receive a more-lenient settlement than 20 years.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Punitive fines are a thing. They are designed to discourage bad behavior.
If fines only made you pay back damages, then there is no disincentive to fuck people over.
WHILE(1){
Cheat();
IF(CAUGHT) Pay Fine();
}
With punitive damages:
WHILE(IsProfitable(totalFines, totalIllicitGains)){
Cheat();
IF(CAUGHT) Pay Fine();
}
If you forget to lock your car door and someone steals your car, should you be arrested as an accessory to grand theft?
Poor car analogy, not least because your insurance company might not be very sympathetic, and also because it isn't the end user's fault in the Safari case. Better analogy:
If your car manufacturer builds a faulty door lock, and the car gets stolen, should the manufacturer have liability (i.e. should you be able sue them for loss of your car when you had some expectation of security)? Probably, the answer is "yes" (but probably you can leave the insurance guys to take them to task instead, since they're the ones losing more than CDs and fluffy dice that you got from Auntie Mavis).
There is no expectation of privacy on the internet, irrelevant of the browser you use or the site you visit. I would LOVE for the government to pass a law specifically stating there were such an expectation... but to do so would mean they would have to obey the law as well. For the government to fine a business for privacy violations when the government itself is collecting far more sensitive information about us, for much more nefarious purposes than profits, is just silly.
Pfft whatever... If Google broke the law, they should be fined. It will be a slap on the wrist anyway. If not, write a nasty press release about them, and let god sort it out. This is like the senate wasting an infinite amount of time on steroids in professional sports.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Whatever privacy violation Google committed here is diminutive in comparison to what our government does. Ironic that I just finished perusing this: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/05/04/1935210/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready-web-sites-now
So, what about the defective Safari?
Did Google actually violate the law any more so than Apple by expecting all websites to behave?
As someone who has spent quite a bit of time dealing with quirks between the different browsers, it seems (barring evidence to the contrary) entirely possible that the developer may not even have just assumed they were working around a quirk.
$10 million, even $50 or $100 million isn't going to phase a company with google's revenues. they'll pay, admit to nothing, "promise" to do better (but not really do it).. life will go on and google will continue to trample on its users' privacy.
Last year, Google agreed to a settlement in which the FTC would monitor Google's privacy practices for an extended period of time
Does facebook have a similar agreement? This safari thing seems like peanuts compared to some of the stuff they pull. If I am wrong please feel free to explain to me how, I am not claiming to be an expert merely asking a question.
While I don't totally disagree that this is a good idea, I can think of quite a lot of companies that should be higher up the list for this kind of intervention. For example, almost every telecoms or energy company...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
No, more accurately –if the manufacturer builds a faulty lock, and bill steals the car, should bill still go to jail for theft ;)