Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Fined $22.5M Over Safari Privacy Violation

Posted by samzenpus on from the pay-the-man dept.

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."

7 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 slashmydots · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. 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.

  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?

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

    But remember, evil is subjective.

  4. 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?