Slashdot Mirror
Analytics Company Settles Charges For User Tracking
An anonymous reader writes "A web analytics company has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated federal law by using its web-tracking software that collected personal data without disclosing the extent of the information that it was collecting. The company, Compete Inc., also allegedly failed to honor promises it made to protect the personal data it collected. KISSmetrics, the developer and seller of the homonymous tool, has agreed to pay up to make the suit go away, but the the two plaintiffs will get only $5,000 each, while the rest of the money — more than half a million dollars — will go to their lawyers for legal fees."
If the government did this or is it, doing this, it would be tossed out of court on a national security / executive order basis.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
but the the two plaintiffs will get only $5,000 each, while the rest of the money — more than half a million dollars — will go to their lawyers for legal fees."
Posted at the end of the submission.
The wired article that this is based on actually says that the two plaintiffs will have to split the $5000...bet their wishing they went to law school right now.
Systematic abuse against the privacy of many, yet all it takes is a little money to make us all forget as if it never happened.
Once again, the lawyers win, and nobody else. What exactly did they contribute here?
[SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS
I'll bet the Compete guys looked at each other and said, let's mail off that check today and get back to what we've been doing.
Apparently the real purpose of class action suits is not compensation for the victims, but rather punishment of the guilty; if that is really the case, it makes sense that the lawyers who did the work should be the big winners. But, in my mind, that a very big "if."
The free market would have sorted this all out. How dare the government intervene in private enterprise and contracts between consenting individuals. Fuck off socialists! Vote Mitt Romney so we stop punishing the entrepreneurs who fuel or economy.
The summary doesn't make it clear: these are two separate suits. From TFA:
1. Compete failed to remove personal data before transmitting it; failed to provide reasonable and appropriate data security; transmitted sensitive information from secure websites in readable text; failed to design and implement reasonable safeguards to protect consumers’ data; and failed to use readily available measures to mitigate the risk to consumers’ data. The proposed settlement order requires Compete and its clients to fully disclose the information they collect and get consumers’ express consent before they collect consumers’ data in the future, that the company delete or anonymize the use of the consumer data it already has collected, and that it provide directions to consumers for uninstalling its software. The settlement bars misrepresentations about the company’s privacy and data security practices and requires that it implement a comprehensive information security program with independent third-party audits every two years for 20 years.
2. KISSmetrics has also agreed to settle a lawsuit that charged them with using a tool that would "resuscitate" cookies deleted by privacy-minded users in order to surreptitiously track their online behavior. KISSmetrics has agreed to pay up to make the suit go away, but the two plaintiffs will get only $5,000 each, while the rest of the money - more than half a million dollars - will go to their lawyers for legal fees. The settlement does not contain an admission of guilt from KISSmetrics, but just a promise that it will not track users without their permission in the future.
There's two completely different lawsuits mentioned in TFA which the editor (oh. Samzenpus.) managed to compress into one when doing the summary. Compete doesn't actually have to pay a cent, but their settlement with the FTC requires them to complete third party audits every two years, immediately cease the infringing activity, delete (or anonymize) any data it already collected, and get express consent before ever collecting info again. KISSmetrics has to pay half a million dollars for developing their platform in such a way that it resurrected deleted cookies so that you couldn't escape tracking. They also didn't admit guilt, so there's nothing stopping them carrying on doing it.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Kissmetrics also covered here: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/kissmetrics-tracking/
S
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
I'm sorry folks, but without Tort Reform in this country, nothing else is going to work right. All of our major civil service system failures - patents, health care, plain old business as usual, are failing because lawyers make the rules, fill the seats in Washington and are allowed to get away with this sort of behavior. Unless We The People insist that lawyers fees be limited, our economy and system of governance will suffocate under the weight of farcical legal fees and judgments. It doesn't matter if you vote D or R - we need to reform how law is practiced. Stop enriching the legal "class" through your refusal to stand up to a system corrupted by greed.
I am baffled by the accusations against the lawyers. (I apologize if I sound an apologist, but this really needs to be addressed fairly.) These cases are not about remuneration for the Plaintiffs--this was a FTC complaint and apparently not a lawsuit--but about enforcing public laws addressing public harms. One way to do that is to fine or levy costs against the alleged offenders (or reach a settlement as apparently in this case which accomplishes a similar goal without admitting wrongdoing). I think people are confusing lawsuits for personal damages (tough in these types of cases and probably why this apparently was not a lawsuit) in contrast with FTC administrative complaints to enforce public laws for the public good. Once that is understood, these cases take on a very different light. Plus, in general, 1) The Plaintiffs, if they want to keep all the money AND accept the risk in a lawsuit, fully and always have the option to pay for the legal services. 2) Plaintiffs may opt (always their choice) for placing the risk and costs of the legal action on the lawyers in exchange for not needing to pay legal fees in the event the matter goes nowhere (and probably not needing to pay any legal fees up-front). That is how contingency fee arrangements generally work. Also see item 5. 3) These cases can cost a significant amount of money--often running into the ten- to hundreds of thousands of dollars--and something that non-lawyers simply do not understand (I am not bashing anyone, but this must be better understood by the tech community). These cases are not merely showing up in court like an old re-run of The People's Court or Judge Judy and walking out with tons of money. 4) The Courts aren't the lottery. Frankly, why should these Plaintiffs get anything? (I mean really think about it.) These are public damage FTC administrative complaints to enforce PUBLIC harms and not personal damage lawsuits. $5,000 each for these Plaintiffs--while everyone else apparently gets nothing? Is that really fair? Remember, this apparently was not a lawsuit but an FTC complaint and FTC enforcement action. If the Plaintiffs really wanted money, there are other legal methods (with risks) besides a public harm complaint. 5) Many federal statutes provide legal fees. The public policy behind this is to encourage lawyers to take these types of cases for the pubic good. Yes, the settlement MIGHT SOUND large, but the whole story is not evident. Frankly, the purpose was at least in part achieved--these types of apparently false claims will not be tolerated--at little or no cost to taxpayers (the lawyer fees were apparently paid from the settlement). The system worked--so why blame the lawyers who took the risk to help with this action? I am not trying to attack others, but these cases and issues are far more complex that they seem. The point here is the public good (which apparently was the purpose) was at least minimally protected.