Google Facing FTC Fine Over Safari Privacy Breach 73
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the really-expensive-cookies dept.
from the really-expensive-cookies dept.
suraj.sun writes "Bloomberg is reporting on Google's negotiation with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission over 'how big a fine, which could amount to more than $10 million, it will have to pay for its breach of Apple's Safari browser. The fine would be the first by the FTC for a violation of Internet privacy as the agency steps up enforcement of the Web.' Last year, Google agreed to a settlement in which the FTC would monitor Google's privacy practices for an extended period of time. 'The 20-year settlement bars Google from misrepresenting how it handles user information and requires the company to follow policies that protect consumer data in new products.' This February, Google was found to be bypassing privacy controls in Safari by making the browser think a user was submitting a form, when they actually weren't. '(The code used by Google was part of its program to place the "+1" button in advertisements.) At the time, the company issued a statement saying that the circumvention wasn't intentional, but privacy groups were still quick to file complaints with the FTC over Google's actions. That was quickly followed by a class-action lawsuit and an investigation by European regulators.'"
How about fix the browser (Score:2, Insightful)
Absolutely right! (Score:5, Insightful)
Since Google was on the hook for previous privacy violations, and had agreed to a settlement where they agreed that the FTC should check for further violations, a fine at this time is quite correct.
Google has enemies. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google gets big, makes powerful enemies. News at 11.
Funny how we only really vague, trivial shit gets Google in to the court room.
For all those with a clue, Google's actions are really a workaround to a broken, stupid browser privacy scheme that does nothing to protect users from the real bad guys. Just a way to fix web pages for a browser that's not standards compliant. Many times less harmless to the hackery you have to commit to get a web page to work properly in IE6.
20 years seems excessive (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft only got 10 years, and they were not merely spying on people but also abusing their monopoly position to drive competitors out of business. (Kinda like what Comcast is doing now with Hulu, Amazon video streaming.) Google should receive a more-lenient settlement than 20 years.
Re:This is stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
If you forget to lock your car door and someone steals your car, should you be arrested as an accessory to grand theft?
Poor car analogy, not least because your insurance company might not be very sympathetic, and also because it isn't the end user's fault in the Safari case. Better analogy:
If your car manufacturer builds a faulty door lock, and the car gets stolen, should the manufacturer have liability (i.e. should you be able sue them for loss of your car when you had some expectation of security)? Probably, the answer is "yes" (but probably you can leave the insurance guys to take them to task instead, since they're the ones losing more than CDs and fluffy dice that you got from Auntie Mavis).
Re:How about fix the browser (Score:5, Insightful)
That this comment got insightful mods shows just how poorly understood this whole mess is on slashdot (or perhaps that the prevailing wisdom is that "Google can do no wrong"?).
Safari already blocks third party cookies by default, and to get around that "pesky" setting that prevents Google's ad tracking from working (and making them money), they designed a process that used an exploit to trick Safari into believing that user authorisation had been given to set the cookie anyway.
No one is disputing that Safari needs to close that exploit (I'm sure it's being worked on, if it hasn't been closed already), but this certainly CAN NOT be described as "legitimate" use of a browser feature by any stretch of the imagination. It was an browser exploit designed to get around Safari's privacy settings.
Put it this way, the user has the setting that says "do not accept third party cookies unless I specifically say so" and Google's response and direct action to that was "nah! that's really inconvenient to us, so we'll set that cookie anyway even though you have specifically said no"
"Do No Evil (unless it interferes with the bottom line)".
drop, meet bucket. (Score:2, Insightful)
$10 million, even $50 or $100 million isn't going to phase a company with google's revenues. they'll pay, admit to nothing, "promise" to do better (but not really do it).. life will go on and google will continue to trample on its users' privacy.