UK Apple Users Sue Google Over Safari Tracking

Dupple writes "After settling with the FTC, Google is under pressure again regarding user privacy. From the BBC: 'A group of Apple's Safari web browser users has launched a campaign against Google over privacy concerns. They claim that Google bypassed Safari's security settings to install cookies which tracked their movements on the internet. Between summer 2011 and spring 2012 they were assured by Google this was not the case, and believed Safari's settings to be secure. Judith Vidal-Hall, former editor of Index On Censorship magazine, is the first person in the UK to begin legal action. 'Google claims it does not collect personal data but doesn't say who decides what information is "personal,"' she said. 'Whether something is private or not should be up to the internet surfer, not Google. We are best placed to decide, not them.'"

Comments

How is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen those small "Share" and "Like" buttons all over the web?

Thats right, Facebook, Google, and others, see every time a browser downloads those buttons and which URL it was loaded from. It the user happens to be logged on to their service, they also see the user's identity.

In otherwords, Facebook, Google can track almost every user and page load on the web!

Re:How is this news?

[BasilBrush]

The news is that in the EU it's illegal to track users with cookies without their consent. Google went out of their way to circumvent the security settings on Safari, such that they tracked users even when they's said no. And then on top of that Google lied about it, saying they weren't doing so.

It's illegal. There is no "it's already happening" defence.

Really?

[kullnd]

Maybe Google should start charging us for their services that we get for free... They have to make their money from something, if you don't like it don't use it. Also, anyone who honestly believes that a toggle in their browser is going to prevent them from being tracked on the open internet needs an education on how things really work in the real digital world.

Re:Really?

[Dexter Herbivore]

Also, anyone who honestly believes that a toggle in their browser is going to prevent them from being tracked on the open internet needs an education on how things really work in the real digital world.

When the law says that the user shouldn't be tracked, then the user shouldn't be tracked. In an ideal world, Google shouldn't be going out of the way to circumvent those laws.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, the law says that you must inform users they are being tracked.

Which is the case here.

It's an astroturf movement. Apple getting at Google for Android.

It was a similar faked outrage when *33* people complained about Attenborough's bit on a polar bear giving birth which was done in a zoo for the safety of the cameramen and the polar bears and described on the BBC web site for the program. But, because it dared say that AGW was a problem, the daily hate mail insisted this was AN OUTRAGE.

Manufactured.

PS to use the BBC website, you are required to accept cookies or the site won't work. Mostly for technical reasons, but you still have to allow cookies.

They DO tell you "We use cookies" and that is all the law required.

It was a pretty useless law.

pot, kettle, black, etc.

[dontbemad]

i find it mildly amusing that Apple product users are suing google over something related to tracking.

Re:pot, kettle, black, etc.

[GodfatherofSoul]

Regardless, Google lied and got busted lying. "She hit me first" didn't work for your mother, and it won't work in court either.

Re:Can't let every consumer dictate what privacy i

[icebike]

Much as I can agree with the sentiment, we cannot allow every single consumer out there to dictate what constitutes privacy data. Perhaps google should publish what it deems as privacy information, and then allow the consumer to decide to play along or not.

What an excellent Idea. I wonder why Google Never Thought About That.

I find Google far more forthcoming than most companies, and offering a much finer grained level of control.

I would also wager, that Judith Vidal-Hall has a facebook page, a Linkedin page. As far as I'm concerned, anyone signing up for either of those two services has abdicated all semblance of Privacy. Living in a country with CCTV cameras on every street corner, and a government hell bent on capturing every keystroke on your computer forever, how can she object if Google complies with her country's laws?

Why not sue Apple?

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

I mean ultimately its Safari's problem that Google could find a way to circumvent their privacy settings and write cookies to their user profile. If Safari was written properly then no website should be able to access private information or write to profile.

What is at fault here is the users thought Safari was secure, but Google found a way around the security. Its Safari's issue, period.