Google Loses Ruling In Safari Tracking Case

mpicpp sends this report from CNET: The floodgates are now open for UK users to sue Google over privacy violations tied to tracking cookies. In a landmark ruling, the UK's Court of Appeal has dismissed Google's request to prevent British Web users from suing the company over tracking cookies and privacy violations. The decision was announced Friday, according to the BBC. In spite of default privacy settings and user preferences — including an opt-out of consent to be tracked by cookies — Google's tracking cookies gathered information on Safari browser users for nine months in 2011 and 2012.

Comments

Google's attourneys should be kicked out of the ba

[gurps_npc]

They had the gall to say their illegal invasion of privacy was OK because their was no financial harm?

By that logic, some freak could put a camera in their shower - or worse their KID'S shower and not get punished.

Yes, I know that much of the Internet based business hates privacy and tries to pretend it doesn't exist, but that is the enitre reason why we put those laws in place.

On what grounds could one sue?

[Wootery]

On what grounds could one sue? I imagine it would be quite hard to prove real damages with a price-tag attached.

Also, we don't have class-action lawsuits in the UK.

Also, the new BBC News design looks truly awful on Firefox+NoScript on desktop. Not an improvement, BBC.

Re:On what grounds could one sue?

[Anonymous Coward]

People seem to forget a lot of the time that when you bring a civil suit you need to show at least two things: evidence that the party you're suing did wrong and that you suffered in some way as a result which allows you to seek relief through the courts. I think its going to be hard for anyone to show how Google's actions hurt them.

Re:On what grounds could one sue?

[Lunix Nutcase]

On what grounds could one sue?

Probably under data privacy laws.

I imagine it would be quite hard to prove real damages with a price-tag attached.

They don't need to show financial hardship:

Google argued the point was moot because consumers suffered no financial hardship due to the practice. The UK's Court of Appeal disagreed. According to the court's judgment:

"These claims raise serious issues which merit a trial. They concern what is alleged to have been the secret and blanket tracking and collation of information, often of an extremely private nature [...] about and associated with the claimants' Internet use, and the subsequent use of that information for about nine months. The case relates to the anxiety and distress this intrusion upon autonomy has caused."

Re:On what grounds could one sue?

[Merk42]

Also, the new BBC News design looks truly awful on Firefox+NoScript on desktop. Not an improvement, BBC.

Seems to work surprisingly well for no JavaScript.

Re:On what grounds could one sue?

[Anonymous Coward]

he case relates to the anxiety and distress this intrusion upon autonomy has caused."

Autonomy? This in a nation with CCTV cameras every 10 yards or so...

Re:On what grounds could one sue?

[macs4all]

On what grounds could one sue? I imagine it would be quite hard to prove real damages with a price-tag attached.

Also, we don't have class-action lawsuits in the UK.

Perhaps "Breach of Contract"? I am SURE, even without looking, that, buried deep down on Google's site, is some document that starts "By using this service, you agree to the following terms and conditions..."

You don't have Class Actions in the UK? How telling...

Re:On what grounds could one sue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because "But your honor, other people are MURDERING people, I move we dismiss all charges in my assault case immediately," has always been a strong defense in court.

The fact that other people are "also doing shit that's pretty shady" doesn't make "Google's shady behavior" okay.

Re:On what grounds could one sue?

[macs4all]

People seem to forget a lot of the time that when you bring a civil suit you need to show at least two things: evidence that the party you're suing did wrong and that you suffered in some way as a result which allows you to seek relief through the courts. I think its going to be hard for anyone to show how Google's actions hurt them.

You are wrong. At least in the U.S.

Doing wrong = Liability.

Harm to the Plaintiff = Damages.

They aren't the same. But having said that, the Defendants (Respondents) will likely move for either Summary Judgment or a "Directed Verdict" if the Plaintiff cannot allege actual harm.

Re:On what grounds could one sue?

[macs4all]

he case relates to the anxiety and distress this intrusion upon autonomy has caused."

Autonomy? This in a nation with CCTV cameras every 10 yards or so...

I know; I thought that was funny, too.

But maybe the British Courts are swinging the pendulum the other way, now...

Re:On what grounds could one sue?

[gstoddart]

Perhaps "Breach of Contract"? I am SURE, even without looking, that, buried deep down on Google's site, is some document that starts "By using this service, you agree to the following terms and conditions..."

Honestly, it doesn't matter WTF is in Google's ToS if those terms violate the local law.

Google can whine and bitch all they want, but you can't embed something illegal into a contract.

The UK privacy laws always trump Google, no matter what Google wants to claim. Especially since Google has localized versions for most countries they operate in.

They simply can't claim to be exempt from the law. Terms of service are not magical ... they couldn't say that you agree to indentured servitude either.

In this case, Google said "fuck it, we don't care if you've opted out".

Though, admittedly, this was partly helped by the fact that Apple incompetently implemented blocking of 3rd part cookies. Basically everybody figured out how to bypass that.

Re:On what grounds could one sue?

[robsku]

Emotional distress caused by invasion of privacy sounds viable to me, however IANAL.

Considering that I personally, as well as several people I know, experience anxiety from what we know - and what we *don't* know about things we know - about cyber privacy invasions by corporations and nations (as well as cracker, terrorist and/or criminal organizations) tracking, profiling, spying, trading the information, etc. etc. - I don't find hard at all to believe that proving harm caused by illegal actions of this short would not necessary be that hard.

After all, you have to remember, these laws came from peoples demand because they felt threatened by them. Is it then hard to see how a court could see violations of such crimes having caused harm?

Re:On what grounds could one sue?

[whoever57]

You don't have Class Actions in the UK? How telling...

It's not so simple. The following is an amateur explanation of how things work. Perhaps someone can explain it better?

The UK has loser pays on legal fees. Once one person wins a lawsuit on a common basis, others can expect to win also. If the company lost those cases in court (as would now be very likely), the company would be liable for both sides' legal bills in lots of individual cases. So, after losing one representative case in what would be class action in the USA, a defendant has a very strong incentive to settle the others. People who would be in a class in the USA can band together to fund the initial representative case.

Re:On what grounds could one sue?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the United States it's called "The Computer Misuse Act" and each individual who's been tracked by Google in the States can sue for $10,000 per incident. This means everytime Google did not honor the "Do Not Track" Setting and how many times would that be per individual per day? I'm by no means a major surfer - maybe 50 sites I visit several times per day. That' means 50 visits times 10 per day equals 500 incidents per day. How long did Google continue ignoring the DNT setting in Safari after being caught? At Five Million Dollars per day just for my usage, it can get quite expensive and you know what, that's individual lawsuits - not a class action suit.

Note that at 5 million per day times 30 days is a very nice payoff and with the RICO laws and every other computer related incident that can be added, you're looking at punitive damages of possibly ten to twenty times the award. Say you win judgement of one hunder fifty million - multiply that by anything from ten to twenty and you're suddenly talking a billion and a half or better award. Now tell me there aren't enough lawyers/barristers that have the resources needed to pursue such a possible payoff. Hell they'd take half of it and be able to retire to the Life of Riley couldn't they?

Re:On what grounds could one sue?

[sumdumass]

Well, "he was shooting everyone in the room so I shot him" is often a valid defense. However, I think that might be an outlier to your otherwise valid point.

Re: On what grounds could one sue?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not an outlier, that's a different case. Prevention of a greater crime is a valid defence.

Re:On what grounds could one sue?

[macs4all]

You don't have Class Actions in the UK? How telling...

It's not so simple. The following is an amateur explanation of how things work. Perhaps someone can explain it better? The UK has loser pays on legal fees. Once one person wins a lawsuit on a common basis, others can expect to win also. If the company lost those cases in court (as would now be very likely), the company would be liable for both sides' legal bills in lots of individual cases. So, after losing one representative case in what would be class action in the USA, a defendant has a very strong incentive to settle the others. People who would be in a class in the USA can band together to fund the initial representative case.

Thanks for the explanation, that does help.

But I still don't like the "Loser Pays" rule, when there is a big difference between the resources of an individual trying to sue a well-heeled company (let alone the government) with the sheer legal might to run roughshod over almost any arguments or experts the lowly individual might bring to the bar. But that's a discussion for another time.

Re:On what grounds could one sue?

[mysidia]

I think its going to be hard for anyone to show how Google's actions hurt them.

Buyer's remorse. Example scenario:

Google used cookies to track me and display the most effective advertising that most greatly appealed to my preferences and was most persuasive to me.

Because the advertisement shown was more persuasive; they talked me into purchasing X with a more persuasive Ad, even though buying X was not worth it.

I would not have purchased it, if the more persuasive ad wasn't shown as a result of tracking me and tailoring ad selection to my vulnerabilities (preferences).

Therefore, Google should be responsible for my lost $$$ in non-refundable digital purchases.

And who *ever* bought "Don't be evil"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google started in the gutter as a fucking AD AGENCY, and they went downhill to selling every detail of your private life they can get their grubby hands on.

Their fundamental business is to wring every last bit of privacy from you and SELL IT.

Don't tell me you EVER thought "Don't be evil" was anything other than a marketing slogan concocted by - get this - an ad agency.

Re:And who *ever* bought "Don't be evil"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google started in the gutter as a fucking AD AGENCY, and they went downhill to selling every detail of your private life they can get their grubby hands on.

Their fundamental business is to wring every last bit of privacy from you and SELL IT.

Don't tell me you EVER thought "Don't be evil" was anything other than a marketing slogan concocted by - get this - an ad agency.

I want to print out this post and cram it down so many throats.

Captcha: defends

Re:And who *ever* bought "Don't be evil"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay... and how many services of Google do you pay for?

Re:And who *ever* bought "Don't be evil"?

[Anonymous Coward]

>And who *ever* bought "Don't be evil"?

Pretty much all of the drooling idiots (i.e. everybody) on this site from about 2003 to 2010. The fanboyism was incredible.

It's really only in the past 2-3 years that the public has really started turning against Google, much as they turned against the former media darling Microsoft in the late 1990s. (Not that any of you snot-nosed kids are old enough to remember when MS was the hero for standing up against the evil IBM monopoly.)

Re:And who *ever* bought "Don't be evil"?

[JustSomeProgrammer]

All of them. Just because I don't pay with money doesn't mean I don't pay something.

Re:And who *ever* bought "Don't be evil"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't use Google services - specifically because they are just thinly veiled ruses to get information on me and sell it.

Same reason that I don't use FaceBook (or, better known as InYourFaceBook).

I am a software developer and a technologist and I know better than to let my information fall into their hands.

The issue with Google is that they are *not* a technology company (though they try to sell themselves as being "all that" with respect to technology). They are Internet TV. They were successful at the holy grail of the Internet back in the day: monetizing the Internet as TV. Give away a lot of junk for free as a means to sell advertizing. The things they build do not have to really work very well at all. They just have to be flashy enough to gather eyeballs so that they can deliver ads. 90% of Google's revenue is from advertizing and derivatives of advertizing. Google has not been able to sell any real sort of product that people would pay money for. Even Android is monetized primarily by ad delivery.

Google has, and will continue to, do anything they can to sell advertizing, and they don't care what lines they have to cross to sell advertizing.

Re:And who *ever* bought "Don't be evil"?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Don't tell me you EVER thought "Don't be evil" was anything other than a marketing slogan concocted by - get this - an ad agency.

The genesis of "Don't be evil" is pretty well documented as being created by Amit Patel & Paul Buchheit, both engineers at Google the time.

Paul's description:

"I believe that it was sometime in early 2000, and there was a meeting to decide on the company’s values. They invited a collection of people who had been there for a while. I had just come from Intel, so the whole thing with corporate values seemed a little bit funny to me. I was sitting there trying to think of something that would be really different and not one of these usual “strive for excellence" type of statements. I also wanted something that, once you put it in there, would be hard to take out.

It just sort of occurred to me that “Don’t be evil” is kind of funny. It’s also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, especially our competitors, who at the time, in our opinion, were kind of exploiting the users to some extent. (...)

But the real fun of it was that people get a little uncomfortable with anything different, so throughout the meeting, the person running it kept trying to push “Don’t be evil” to the bottom of the list. But this other guy, Amit Patel, and I kept kind of forcing them to put it up there. And because we wouldn’t let it fall off the list, it made it onto the final set and took on a life of its own from there. Amit started writing it down all over the building, on whiteboards everywhere. It’s the only value that anyone is aware of, right?"

http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-07-16-n55.html

Re:And who *ever* bought "Don't be evil"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google started in the gutter as a fucking AD AGENCY,

Yep.

and they went downhill to selling every detail of your private life they can get their grubby hands on.

Their fundamental business is to wring every last bit of privacy from you and SELL IT.

No, they don't do that you fucking retard.

It'd destroy their stock value and allow those who buy personal details to cut Google OUT OF THE LOOP.

Random capitalization and emboldening to get through to retard OP.

Re:And who *ever* bought "Don't be evil"?

[Rob Y.]

Y'know, I hate advertising as much as the next guy. But whether or not selling ADs is 'evil', for the thousadth time - they don't sell information. There are others out there that doubtless do. Google has pretty brilliantly come up with a way to monetize the information you provide without selling it directly, and while performing useful services. The results are sometimes creepy, but it doesn't help to mischaracterize the process. They sell advertising in order to provide the 'junk' you mention (presumably the users of gmail, search, youTube, Android, etc don't think of them as junk) - not the other way around. And your kind of hyperbole just makes you look dumb, paranoid - or paid by Microsoft to somehow justify the same exact behavior by their parallel services.

Whether the case at hand is particularly egregious or not (I haven't paid enough attention to know), the hysteria contained in phrases like "thinly veiled ruses to get information on me and sell it" and "they are *not* a technology company" puts me in the tiresome position of defending them against bullshit charges (as if they really need my defense). So, I guess I'll stop - and simply lament how moronic so much of the commentary on Slashdot has become. I've been on here long enough to remember when it was often quite enlightening...

Re:Google's attourneys should be kicked out of the

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

If people opted out and were still tracked, that's fair game for suing.

Now what's the damages? A government trying to duplicate Chrome + Google search engine could not do so, and you'd probably have been taxed a hundred pounds per taxpayer in a failed attempt to do so.

So I'd offer to settle to keep allowing you to use Chrome and Google for free, or get the hell off and go to IE and Bing.

Wrong target

[Martin S.]

This problem was caused by a bug in Safari that ignored the no tracking setting and accepted and returned the cookies. This court case is just absurd. The target should be Apple not Google.

Re:Wrong target

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Google went out of their way to exploit this bug to so they could use their cookie to further their business goals. This was no ‘accidental’ situation where they happened to get cookies, they adjusted their code to trigger the bug.

Re:Wrong target

[Anonymous Coward]

There's something to this. AFAIK, the conversation between browser and server went like:

Goog: Hey, I got this cookie here. Store it for me?
Browser: Sure, send it on over!
Goog: OK! Give it back later. Cool?
Browser: Cool.

Information wants to be free. You can't very well blame google for remembering information you sent them. This reminds me of people who post shit on Facebook for everybody to see, then get upset when later on, somebody sees it. You don't want that to happen, then don't post it! Same concept here.

Re:Wrong target

[clonehappy]

Why not both? Apple should be held accountable for their software ignoring the flags set by the user (if that's actually the case, and I'll get to that later), but Google should be held accountable for exploiting a weakness in someone else's systems.

If I were to exploit a bug for profit, I'd get to look forward to federal PMITA prison. When large corporate conglomerates do the same thing, they get to laugh about how they didn't cause anyone financial losses, so they should get away scot-free.

That being said, the "Do Not Track" flag was never a setting that stopped tracking cookies from being set by websites, it was an extra flag sent along with your request that said "Pretty Please with Sugar on Top, Don't Track Me, Okay Guys?", which any websites were free to (and I assume they all did anyway, especially Google) ignore. I don't ever remember a setting in Safari that disallowed cookies but wasn't "Private Browsing" mode. Private Browsing just clears everything when you close the browser, so the only other setting could be the "Do Not Track" flag.

Which anyone who was paying attention should have realized was completely bogus to begin with.

Re:Wrong target

[Richard_at_work]

Yeah, let's go with that logic next time a major healthcare website is hacked and your private data is suddenly plastered everywhere.

Or, let's realise there is no restriction on how much blame there is to go round, and we blame Apple for having bugs in their software, and we blame Google for going out of their way to exploit a bug in Apples software.

Google deserves to be slapped down for this.

Re:Wrong target

[BadgerRush]

You are terribly misinformed about what the "no tracking" flag means. It is not a setting meant to change how the browser stores information or behaves, and it is definitely not some equivalent of a "disable cookies" setting. Instead the no tracking flag is meant to be sent on a HTTP header as a way to inform the server that the user doesn't wan't to be tracked, it is a way for users inform the server that they are actively opting-out of any and all tracking.

So there was no bug in Safari, browsers with no tracking enabled are still supposed to keep accepting and returning cookies (unless that was specifically disabled elsewhere), after all there are more uses for cookies than only tracking. The real "bug" (more like crime) was Google ignoring the user's explicit wishes and keeping tracking users even after said users explicitly opted-out, informing Google trough the proper channel (the no tracking flag).

Re:Wrong target

[Anonymous Coward]

DNT's not 100% bogus. Maybe not everyone respects it, but a lot do! More-upstanding networks often demand it.

Re:Wrong target

[macs4all]

This problem was caused by a bug in Safari that ignored the no tracking setting and accepted and returned the cookies. This court case is just absurd. The target should be Apple not Google.

Haters gotta hate, don't they?

Re:Wrong target

[Anonymous Coward]

Information doesn't want anything, fucktard.

Re:Wrong target

[Just Some Guy]

The target should be Apple not Google.

That's a stupendous way to end software development overnight. Yes, Apple had a bug. All software has bugs. They clearly intended for a different outcome and surely never expected Google to actively attack it.

Of the two, Apple made a mistake but acted with good intentions (at least on the surface, but there's no point going full tinfoil because then there's no point having a conversation about it). Google acted maliciously, and if someone's going to be held accountable for this then it should be them.

In before "lol fanboy": I would say exactly the opposite if, say, iCloud.com exploited a bug (not a feature: a bug) in Chrome to do the same thing. In this specific case, Apple seems to have acted honorably and Google unhonorably.

Re:Wrong target

[_merlin]

No, you're describing the "do not track" header, and that's not what this is about. This is about circumventing the "accept 3rd-party cookies" setting. Google used a nasty piece of JavaScript to simulate a user form submission so they could store a cookie that would otherwise be rejected.

Re:Wrong target

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this problem was caused by Google actively exploiting Safari. It had nothing to do with the "voluntary" DNT settings.

Safari, by default, disallows "third party cookies." Google said, "you know, that doesn't like, work for us, man... we need to track you anyway!" and exploited WebKit in a way that sent an "invisible form submission" to the Google servers, which made Safari behave as if the USER had interacted with them - meaning, the Google servers were able to send "first party" cookies, when in fact, they where third party cookies used for tracking purposes.

In other words, Google had to knowingly exploit this behavior to track you, despite ALL of your settings to the contrary saying "don't accept these cookies, don't track me, etc." This wasn't an accidental "oops, we sent them, and Safari accepted them... sorry guys." This is "Oops, Safari blocked us, but we cleverly came up with a way to install our cookies against your permission, so we used it. Besides, you WANT us to track you so we can bring you amazing advertising."

Re:Wrong target

[alvinrod]

Information wants to be free.

Information is inanimate and doesn't want anything. If you believe otherwise feel free to post your banking information and medical history because apparently that wants to be free as well.

Please, won't you think of the information?

Re:Wrong target

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong that there was no bug:
Greenhalgh says that Apple’s Safari web browser is especially vulnerable to the exploit. While clearing cookies on Mozilla’s Firefox, Google Chrome, or Opera also erases HSTS flags, deleting the super cookies, there’s no way to do so on Safari on iOS devices.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/super-cookies-hsts-security-private-2015-1#ixzz3VgIBUc8H

and you're wrong how the do not track header functions:
There are no legal or technological requirements for its use. As such, websites and advertisers may either honour the request, or completely ignore it.[25] The Digital Advertising Alliance does not require its members to honor DNT signals. "The Council of Better Business Bureaus and the Direct Marketing Association will not sanction or penalize companies or otherwise enforce with respect to DNT signals set on IE10 or other browsers."[26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track

Tracking and cookie acceptance/retention, in this context, are inextricably intertwined.

Stop Collecting Data

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't need it, stop storing it. Why is this so hard to understand?

Do Google need to track absolutely everyone 24/7 across the whole internet? Probably not. Some autists see a massive data centre and the capability to track everything and they just can't help but fill up all those databases with useless bits. It's corporate OCD and there are entirel rituals and belief about it.

People go on and on about collations and marketing stats and prediction algorithms, but Google is drowning in big data just like everyone else. You can't catch terrorists and you'll never make back the investment in prediction vs a traditional marketing campaign.

Just stop storing it. Let Go.

Re:Stop Collecting Data

[Anonymous Coward]

Anon because I work for big-data tracking and advertising: "You'll never make back the investment" is wrong, and I'd know!
Have no fear though Slashdotters, some of us actually do obey the no-tracking flags, and remember the next time you click on an unpaywalled article or get to keep using Youtube for free, to say a quiet thank-you to the people who pay to keep those servers' lights on. Tracking gets them paid more... A LOT MORE.

Re:Google's attourneys should be kicked out of the

[Anonymous Coward]

It never ceases to amaze me how people will bend over backwards to justify and defend Google's actions.

You suffered no financial harm by the NSA tracking and collating reams of information about you... where's the damage? If Google violating your privacy is okay, why can't the NSA, or any other person who decides they can make a profit (or benefit somehow) off of collecting and selling your information, as long as you suffer no financial loss from the persistent, invasive monitoring they subject you to?

If I were a judge, I'd take your offer to settle, fine you as much as I was able to under the law, and do everything I could to kill your business in my jurisdiction, based on your flagrant disrespect for the law of the land. "Rule of law" is not a cute archaic phrase that should be thrown out as soon as it's inconvenient for Google.

There is no need to prove "further" damage

[Anonymous Coward]

Privacy law are quite stronger in EU. The fact that the privacy was breached *IS* the damage. there is no need to prove damage beyond the breach.

Re:There is no need to prove "further" damage

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

However, we don't normally award punitive damages in civil cases here in the UK, so even if there is a definitive judgement at some stage that Google was invading privacy and failing to protect personal data, it seems unlikely they will suffer more than a token slap on the wrist from a privacy regulator provided that they cease and desist (as it appears they already have). Unfortunately, civil trials here are not very effective at recognising damage that comes in forms other than actual financial loss and doing much to compensate for it and/or discourage similar behaviour in the future.

Re:Google's attourneys should be kicked out of the

[macs4all]

If people opted out and were still tracked, that's fair game for suing.

Now what's the damages? A government trying to duplicate Chrome + Google search engine could not do so, and you'd probably have been taxed a hundred pounds per taxpayer in a failed attempt to do so.

So I'd offer to settle to keep allowing you to use Chrome and Google for free, or get the hell off and go to IE and Bing.

Spoken like a true "Glad to be surveilled" Brit.

Expect successful suits in Canada

[WillAffleckUW]

Expect successful lawsuits in Canada, where Privacy is a Constitutional Right, and eventually in the US by EU/UK and Canadian citizens protected against such actions by the EU/US and US/Canada Data Treaties.

(note: if you don't like that they have more rights in the US than you do, don't sign treaties giving them such rights next time)

Re:Google's attourneys should be kicked out of the

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be unaware this is a civil case. In a civil lawsuit, you sue for damages. The examples you gave are criminal actions. People can go to jail for violating criminal laws even if no one was harmed at all. That distinction is fundamental to Western legal systems and you really should learn the basics some time.

In Australia...

[bug1]

In Australia government will be suing corporation for not spying on their users. (metadata retention laws)

Remember DNS?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember when DNS was how you got to a website. Anyone else remember those good old days?

To quote "The Road Warrior"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"You want out of tracking? You talk to me" via hosts files http://start64.com/index.php?o... & firewall rules tables http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... (that's the one I built for THIS site vs. trackers & more) to SHEAR THAT SHIT OUT (& use a browser that's flexible + not being "sold to you" (even if/when 'free') on a line of bullshit, designed to "sell, sell, sell" YOU, the real 'big data' tracking product, which is WHY I use Opera 12.17 64-bit to this day -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment... which allows MASSIVELY FLEXIBLE settings, by site, for javascript, cookies, iframes/frames, plugins & more...

* Sorry for the links but for the past couple years now here on this site, they often set "length limits" on posts - but the details (the important part) IS in those links...

APK

P.S.=> Not only is that setup BETTER, safer, & faster (than adding on more bullshit eating up CPU needlessly with the 'new horseshit' that isn't better but instead SLOWER & less flexible, largely I suspect, intentionally (even *trying* to 'skirt that' for the masses by say, Chrome, putting options that SHOULD BE GUI EASY onto commandline switching instead which MOST 'regular folks users' won't know enough to do imo - same shit adblock pulls, transparent & lame deceit that does a "CYA/CYB" to cover them if confronted on it) but it's also MORE EFFICIENT by using what you already have natively vs. "bolting on more" bullshit (that doesn't work & is paid NOT to do its job, like AdBlock AND AdBlock 'plus', what a misnomer, crippled by default - it's "Almost ALL Ads Blocked MINUS" in reality, doing less than hosts which do MORE with LESS)... apk

Boo hoo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I'm all broken up. Google knowingly breaks European laws, gets caught, and now has to pay the price. Boo hoo hoo, cry me a river.