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."

24 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. hmmm... by slashmydots · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:hmmm... by Desler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Semi-silently? The text explicitly tells you it's installing Safari and gives you a checkbox to not install it. What exactly is illegal?

    2. Re:hmmm... by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The titlebar of the update app saying "iTunes Software Updates." That isn't what it is.

    3. Re:hmmm... by JoelKatz · · Score: 2

      It's a bit bogus to compare something that breaks US law to something that doesn't break US law.

    4. Re:hmmm... by Teckla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean the checkbox in plain sight that you can simply un-check, and not install Safari?

      You know, I always used to look down on people the same way you are now. For years and years.

      Until, one fateful day, I did not pay enough attention to an Adobe Reader update. It installed Google Chrome. I guess I missed an opt-out checkbox somewhere along the way. (Unless it was a 100% stealth install? I guess that's possible.)

      Ever since that happened, I no longer look down on people the same way like that. I think an out-opt default, when we are talking about installing brand new software (not updates), is just plain wrong for companies to do. In my opinion, new software installs should always be opt-in.

      It's just the right thing to do.

    5. Re:hmmm... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      There are lots of stories when it's on-topic to post about Apple's wrongdoings. This story is for posting about Google's. Let's not be partisan here, we can spend enough time flaming both. And probably even Microsoft if they ever manage to do something relevant again...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  2. Not admitting? by wealthychef · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
    1. Re:Not admitting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Not only did lawyers imagine such a world, they have created it. How many times do you hear of a company that gets bullied by a larger company and agrees to pay money to make the bully go away--even when the smaller company is clearly in the right--because paying the bully to go away is less expensive than fighting and winning against it in court?

    2. Re:Not admitting? by Kergan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thought of Google paying Apple to make it stop bullying it gave me a good laugh.

    3. Re:Not admitting? by DragonWriter · · Score: 2

      The thought of Google paying Apple to make it stop bullying it gave me a good laugh.

      Either this is posted in the wrong thread, or you have confused Apple with the US Government, which was the party with whom Google settled in this case.

    4. Re:Not admitting? by John+Jorsett · · Score: 2

      How many times do you hear of a company that gets bullied by a larger company and agrees to pay money to make the bully go away--even when the smaller company is clearly in the right--because paying the bully to go away is less expensive than fighting and winning against it in court?

      Not just among companies, either. California has a litigation industry built around demanding settlements from small businesses under the Americans With Disabilities Act. Give them $5K and they'll go away. Fight it and it'll cost you several times that. So most of them settle, even when the alleged infraction is a crock. There was one case locally where a law firm wrote demand letters to every business in a small town near San Diego, at least some of which it could be proven the plaintiff could not possibly have entered because the businesses had been closed for weeks, or had gone out of business long before the date contained in the complaint.

  3. Google does no evil by Yakasha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But remember, evil is subjective.

    1. Re:Google does no evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Google does no evil is a declarative statement, not a descriptive one. If Google does it, it wasn't evil.

  4. Business as usual by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

    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!
  5. Typical Corporate Response by dave562 · · Score: 2

    "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.

  6. Re:Google's side of the story by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

    I want to be able to log in! But I don't want any stateful information stored outside the stateless protocols!

    I want to have a browser that makes exceptions to just outright disallowing 3rd party cookies, but I want revenge when those exceptions backfire!

  7. Re:IE 10 potential fine? by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    I don't think Google "said" they would honor it. I think they actually said they wouldn't. They're being sued over the Safari thing because they said they wouldn't track people using it then did anyway. So mostly the fine is for lying, not the tracking.

  8. Re:Why so little? by DragonWriter · · Score: 2

    Google's profit is in the billions! How exactly is 22.5 million justice?

    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:

    • more than (the net amount the FTC would be likely to make stick through administrative process and appeals) times (the probability of the FTC prevailing) minus (the cost the FTC would bear if it failed) * (the probability of the FTC losing) and
    • less than (the net amount that Google would have had to pay in fines and costs if it lost) times (the probability of the FTC prevailing) plus (the costs Google would bear if the FTC failed) times (the probability of the FTC failing).

    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.

  9. Re:IE 10 potential fine? by DJRumpy · · Score: 2

    Because the Safari settings wasn't just 'asking' not to be tracked, but rather was supposed to prevent cookies from being placed by 3rd parties (essentially web sites you hadn't directly visited). What google did was to simulate a fake form submission to this third party site in order to set a cookie.

    Not similar at all to the honor system 'do not track' setting.

  10. Re:IE 10 potential fine? by JoelKatz · · Score: 2

    Right, but they said they wouldn't because EU law required them to -- a law that would be unconstitutional (violating the first Amendment) if it was a US law. So why is the US enforcing such a law?

    As a somewhat absurd hypothetical, consider if Iran passed a law that a company can't do business with Iran if they hire any Jews. Some company really wants to do business with Iran, so as Iranian law requires, they say they won't hire any Jews. Then the United States government gets a tip that this company has hired a few Jews, investigates, and fines the company. Does that seem like something the US should be doing?

  11. Re:IE 10 potential fine? by tooyoung · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, Google is not being sued for lying. They are being sued for purposely circumventing a privacy control via what could be called a hack. Now, you can blame Apple for the fact that this hack was possible, but do you not blame the party who purposely circumvented the mechanism? If I can find a way to circumvent your computer's security mechanism, would you only blame the OS manufacturer, or would you be upset that I broke in?

  12. No, it says "Apple Software Update" by kiwimate · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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.

  13. The purpose of the law by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 2

    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/

  14. Re:Google's side of the story by DontLickJesus · · Score: 2

    You are absolutely right, they didn't lie. As a matter of fact, they didn't even commit the crime. Google used a feature, bug, whatever, offered by Safari, to allow logged in users to use a opt-in service. The real problem is that they left the door open, which allowed for other advertisers to piggy-back off their cookie. I feel the fine is appropriately sized, but now I want to know when the government is going after those that piggybacked. I guarantee Google has that information.

    --
    Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found