Slashdot Mirror
Google Fined $22.5M Over Safari Privacy Violation
wiredmikey writes "The US Federal Trade Commission fined Google $22.5 million for violating the privacy of people who used rival Apple's Safari web browser even after pledging not to do so. The FTC said Google had agreed with the commission in October 2011 not to place tracking cookies on or deliver targeted ads to Safari users, but then went ahead and did so. 'For several months in 2011 and 2012, Google placed a certain advertising tracking cookie on the computers of Safari users who visited sites within Google's DoubleClick advertising network,' the FTC said in a statement. 'Google had previously told these users they would automatically be opted out of such tracking.' While Google agreed to the fine, it did NOT admit it had violated the earlier agreement."
Now if only they'd fine Apple for installing Safari as a trojan semi-silently in the background while calling it an iTunes update on the surface. That's illegal about a dozen different ways.
Only a lawyer can imagine a world where a person agrees to paying a 22.5 million dollar fine and then can seriously claim they did nothing wrong.
Currently hooked on AMP
But remember, evil is subjective.
Yesterday, it was posted that IE 10 will have Do Not Track by default turned on by default.
Does that mean Google can be fined if it ignores the users' request for the Do Not Track? What is the difference between this and Safari? I wonder because the comments in that story suggested that website operators can use it an an opt in and ignore it otherwise. I wonder if it would then be a liability to do so?
http://saveie6.com/
Step 1: Get caught doing something shitty
Step 2: Promise to the regulators that it won't happen again
GO TO Step 1
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
What is so special about Safari users that would entitle them to be treated any differently than users of any other browser?
I don't remember the details, but wasn't this a little more nuanced then just Google straight-up lying?
Also, and I'm not trying to defend Google if they did lie about this or whatever, but I think a lot of the crap over cookies is popular media sideshow scare stuff. It (in this case, I believe) doesn't identify individual users and anyway people can generally be tracked by IP and sessions and other stuff.
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Comcast, VerizonWireless, .....
Silly me I thought when you said, "I won't do it anymore," that meant you'd stop. That doesn't seem to apply to the things called corporations.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
* For sufficiently narrow definitions of "evil".
#DeleteChrome
"We'll pay your fine... not because we are wrong, but because it.... 'costs too much' to prove that we didn't really do anything wrong."
I see that Google has grown large enough and been around long enough to attract high priced, high powered legal council. Good for them. They are a true corporation now.
They just need to take the final step of setting up the revolving door between themselves and Washington DC and they will truly be in the big leagues.
Well, given the contribution of what was alleged to Google's profits, the $22.5 million is probably way too much for any kind of justice. But that's pretty much beside the point when it comes to an out of court settlement. What it is probably more relevant is that it is both:
Hence, the settlement with no admission of liability. It's win-win for everyone except the lawyers, etc., who would make money from extended litigation.
I'm not critiquing the reasons why Google is getting so much federal government attention. I'm just wondering why Google is going so much more attention from the FTC than Microsoft ever did. Maybe my memory is too short, but I don't remember MSFT getting many fines. Anybody have a (real) answer?
"Semi-silently"? What, kind of like a stealth aircraft that, umm, isn't really particularly stealthy?
The dialog is clearly split - top half, iTunes, bottom half, other stuff. I uncheck it. It clearly states, right up front, that it's optional. Easy.
And the titlebar at this point says "Apple Software Update". Once you choose to go ahead and install iTunes, then it will say iTunes updates, which I think sounds alarmingly sensible, quite honestly.
iTunes is a dreadful, dreadful piece of software on Windows. But you're flat out fabricating stories, and that's not fair.
Funny how only corporations get offered deals like that.
Because the Google fine was just announced. That means it's news today.
This has been long forgotten by the people who oversee the court system, but the purpose of the law is "to moderate human behaviour."
Such a petty fine against such an incredibly wealthy company will do nothing to moderate their behaviour. To make it worse, Google is openly engaged in large scale tax evasion/avoidance. In the UK last year out of £224 million in taxes they only paid a pitfull £6 million. A fine of £14 million is pocket money to them - just operating overhead. If the government wants to moderate Google's behaviour (besides just pretending to want to) then they would fine them far, far more.
PS. In the words of Willard Mitt Romney, "Corporations are people too, my friend!"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2125883/Amazon-Google-sordid-reality-tax-avoidance.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/09/is-google-avoiding-or-evading-taxes-in-the-uk/
RIAA Vict^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMusic pirates get similar offers, actually.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I always wondered with fines imposed by the FTC, ITC, FDA etc. -- where does the money go? Is there any incentive for govt regulatory bodies to make sure they hit a quota of fines each year so they can keep up with their budget?
By now they seem to have enough important movers and shakers in their pocket, that they can get put of immoral and criminal behavior without even having to admit something and with fines that are a joke. Time for everybody with still intact ethics to leave them.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
"A fine of £14 million is pocket money to them - just operating overhead. If the government wants to moderate Google's behaviour (besides just pretending to want to) then they would fine them far, far more."
A fine thought, however, think of the consequences of say fining Google a £/$1 billion for an offense that hasn't harmed much less killed any kittens. This would jack up the liabilities of companies that do real harm like an oil spill or a nuclear radiation leak. So what do your propose? A government takeover since there's no way such a company can pay a multitrillion £/$ fine?
I say fine the company a fair amount but then order them to fix the problem and repair the damages along with a threat for more drastic action if it fails to implement the court order. This is besides making good on the actual damages including sickness/lost revenue/etc, which are a separate matter.
You can't modify human behavior if you send every offender to death or condemn businesses to a similar fate for offenses that don't merit such harsh treatment.
The CEO just stuck his hand down the back of the couch in his office.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
That's a minor fine, a little higher than a parking ticket and lower than a speeding ticket for us average people (.06%)
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I blame the Conservative coders over at Google+.
In reality, settlements where the paying party doesn't admit guilt are reasonably common in civil cases regardless of whether the parties are individuals or corporations.
Of course, the cases that make the news are big money cases, and those skew disproportionately toward corporations-as-parties independently of whether they go to trial or are settled.
(And FTC actions, specifically, skew toward corporations because of their area of jurisdiction, regardless of size.)
But this was a criminal case.