Google To Pay $8.5 Million In Buzz Privacy Settlement 58
eldavojohn writes "Google's Buzz service will cost the company $8.5 million in settling a class action lawsuit related to the privacy debacle from the days after its release. Ars reports: 'In the proposed settlement submitted to the court this week, Google agreed to make efforts to better educate Buzz users on issues of privacy and the particular privacy features that Buzz offers. Additionally, Google also agreed to pay out $8.5 million to a fund which will be disbursed as cy pres awards for organizations that focus on Internet privacy policy or education.' In other words, the victims (Buzz users) won't see any of that money, but it will be used to promote healthy Internet privacy policies."
Several readers have also noted that Google has simplified its privacy policy, condensing a number of product-specific policies into one and adding a privacy tools page in an effort to make everything more easily understood.
This is another great victory... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is another great victory for lawyers. =b
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
=b
Cool, how could you make that up-side down p?
Re: (Score:2)
This is another great victory for lawyers. =b
It's a victory for everyone except users. Google's PR people can now tell investors and customers "Look how great we are on privacy: in FY2010, we gave $8.5 million to support privacy education, and unlike other companies we've never had to pay a dime of compensation to our users for privacy breaches" making the lost lawsuit sound like benevolence. The law-firm that brought the class action can now say "we've successfully pursued actions against large companies including Google, ..." So the only people
Can victims opt out of this settlement? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's ridiculous to think we won't even get a dime.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Can victims opt out of this settlement? (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead, the money will go to funding lobbyists pushing for privacy legislation. Remember the mantra: Privacy is sacred!
To use a website, you'll need to provide three forms of ID to prove you're not too young, a predator, or any other kind of objectionable person, but the company running the website won't be able to record that fact. You'll need to repeat the process every time you use the site. You can also forget storing preferences, or being able to post your own comments. It's all for privacy! Also note that all the ads on your favorite sites, since they won't be able to be targeted, will present a random selection of products for your consideration. While shopping for a new television, you'll get ads for healthy food for your pet gerbil! While browsing for something vague, like a new cooperative board game for your family, you'll get ads for condoms. I guess that's related...
Remember: Relevance is overrated! Only absolute privacy can protect us from those evil advertisers!
</sarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can victims opt out of this settlement? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? There was absolutely no harm to anyone. The privacy "implications" were completely overblown and mainly by people who just didn't understand how the service worked, the service was opt-in to begin with, and nobody actually had any damage done to them.
This is pretty much completely bullshit, and I imagine the only reasons they settled at all were 1) to save face and 2) to save money, since a legal battle would have cost them more.
Re:Can victims opt out of this settlement? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't call it "opt-in" when Buzz automatically followed frequent contacts.
This, in fact, is why I blocked everyone (even good friends) and promptly deleted my public profile.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't call it "opt-in" when Buzz automatically followed frequent contacts.
This, in fact, is why I blocked everyone (even good friends) and promptly deleted my public profile.
Why, what were you posting on Buzz that you wouldn't want "even good friends" to see? If you wanted to share something with only a few people, why not simply share it directly with those people? Why use Buzz?
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have misunderstood what social networking means and the point behind portals such as facebook and buzz.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't call it "opt-in" when Buzz automatically followed frequent contacts.
This, in fact, is why I blocked everyone (even good friends) and promptly deleted my public profile.
WOW! I simply decided to use the "TURN OFF BUZZ!" option.
I guess the AC was VERY correct with this: "...mainly by people who just didn't understand how the service worked"
Re: (Score:2)
The auto-follow still exposed information without my consent.
It doesn't matter how easily it was to undo, data was still exposed where it shouldn't have been.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It exposed to person-I-write-emails-to-number-1 the existence/name of person-I-write-emails-to-number-2 and viceversa.
Re: (Score:2)
The auto-follow still exposed information without my consent.
It doesn't matter how easily it was to undo, data was still exposed where it shouldn't have been.
That does not match my experiences, nor their text on the matter. I didnt say disable parts of Buzz. I said Turn off (as in entirely) Buzz.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me put it this way.
You sail a ship, and she springs a leak in the hull.
It doesn't matter how fast you haul her back ashore, the bilge is still going to be wet.
Re: (Score:2)
Odd... (1) I got the offer to opt in (not the need to opt out), (2) I actually read the settings page, (3) I got the offer/option to turn it off completely when I opted in,
Maybe I got invited to it while it was in closed beta? That's the only thing I can think of that would make my experience so vastly different than yours.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Noting that it was only 8.5 mil, really sounds like the opposition had very little ground to stand on and this was a concession to make the stupid thing go away.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the summary to be incorrect since as the groups that launched the class actions lawsuit are in fact privacy groups they'll be receiving some fat pay checks.
Re: (Score:2)
You can generally opt out of class-action settlements, yes. But since the settlement was for a lump sum, not a per-class-member calculation, people opting out won't really make any difference, though I guess it could have a PR impact if a huge number of people did.
The usual reason people opt out of class action settlements is actually the opposite: they want to retain their right to sue separately, whereas if you accept the settlement, any future claims for the same issue are barred.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, interesting how you can lose your rights so easily.
You have to opt-in to get your share of the settlement, but you have to opt-out to retain the right to sue seperately.
Re: (Score:1)
$6.5 million? (Score:1)
That's it?
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly I shouldn't be posting so early in the afternoon.
But still, that seems like a small sum of cash for giving away people's private information.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea...it's nothing compared to what Facebook has paid out in privacy settlements over the years, and even that is orders of magnitude less than those invasive ad companies that do profiling based on packet inspection. Remember all those stories on those big settlements?
Neither do I. Neither does anyone. Because they never happened.
Makes one wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The actual reason is because facebook is not google.
You see, those privacy advocate groups do not want any sort of privacy or protections for you or anyone else. They simply want to hate on a successful company.
Same reason just yesterday a quite loud "privacy group" was hating on google, yet using googles own analytical services to spy on everyone going to their website, trying and succeeding in giving you less privacy.
These people love to hate, and see dollar signs all over the legal system that they grew
Re: (Score:1)
So, they will be going after Facebook sometime. Facebook isn't exactly a poor startup anymore.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Consumer Watchdog
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/09/03/177246/Anti-Google-Video-Runs-In-Times-Square [slashdot.org]
I do not see any stories yesterday on slashdot about Google and EFF nor EPIC.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook hides behind the almighty TOS.
Re:Makes one wonder (Score:4, Funny)
Facebook hides behind the almighty TOS.
Hey, I love Star Trek too, but I dont hide behind it... ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you test this from someone else's account, or your own?
Often what you see in Facebook is different from what your friends, their friends, or complete strangers will see.
Your own privacy limitations have no affect on how you see your own information.
And if I remember correctly, from the privacy settings page there is even an option to "view your profile" as if you were someone else, to see it as they would.
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain why GOOGLE can see it then? Did Facebook provide them a blanket superuser account? Or wait! No, the truth is, the information was made PUBLIC.
Viewing my profile as someone else would see it shows my picture. None of the rest of my information. A google search (or searching likes on Facebook), since all my likes have turned into PUBLIC subscriptions (WITH my full name) to "Likes _____" (Music/Sports/etc) pages, makes virtually everything public.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, I dont care that much... especially since "the whole world" knows Iron Maiden is my favorite band... ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell I don't care that everyone knows my Favorite Band is "3 French Horns, 2 Turtle Doves and a Partridge in a Pear Tree".
poor victims! (Score:1)
"Buzz"? (Score:2)
WTF is "Google Buzz", something to drink? Nevermind. I guess Google can afford it.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer Google Gulp myself.
This is absolutely wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
If I remember correctly (Score:3, Interesting)
$8.5M? (Score:2)
Hmmm... according to the figures that Google released for its 2009 financial report, that's about how much profit makes every day... before breakfast.
Somehow I doubt that the loss of 0.1% of their yearly profit is going to motivate Google to change their behavior. Making them look like their release process is totally ad-hoc and unreviewed, and like they don't give a flying fig about privacy, seems much more effective.