Google Pledges To Destroy Browsing Data To Settle 'Incognito' Lawsuit (wsj.com) 35
Google plans to destroy a trove of data that reflects millions of users' web-browsing histories, part of a settlement of a lawsuit that alleged the company tracked millions of users without their knowledge. WSJ: The class action, filed in 2020, accused Google of misleading users about how Chrome tracked the activity of anyone who used the private "Incognito" browsing option. The lawsuit alleged that Google's marketing and privacy disclosures didn't properly inform users of the kinds of data being collected, including details about which websites they viewed. The settlement details, filed Monday in San Francisco federal court, set out the actions the company will take to change its practices around private browsing. According to the court filing, Google has agreed to destroy billions of data points that the lawsuit alleges it improperly collected, to update disclosures about what it collects in private browsing and give users the option to disable third-party cookies in that setting.
The agreement doesn't include damages for individual users. But the settlement will allow individuals to file claims. Already the plaintiff attorneys have filed 50 in California state court. Attorney David Boies, who represents the consumers in the lawsuit, said the settlement requires Google to delete and remediate "in unprecedented scope and scale" the data it improperly collected. "This settlement is an historic step in requiring honesty and accountability from dominant technology companies," Boies said.
The agreement doesn't include damages for individual users. But the settlement will allow individuals to file claims. Already the plaintiff attorneys have filed 50 in California state court. Attorney David Boies, who represents the consumers in the lawsuit, said the settlement requires Google to delete and remediate "in unprecedented scope and scale" the data it improperly collected. "This settlement is an historic step in requiring honesty and accountability from dominant technology companies," Boies said.
If you believe that... (Score:5, Insightful)
A bit late (Score:5, Insightful)
They've already used that data and/or sold it. Destroying it is literally closing the barn doors after the horses get out.
Since there is no penalty for their "misleading" information what's the point?
Re:A bit late (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A bit late (Score:4, Insightful)
Google doesn't sell browsing data. If you believe otherwise, provide us with a link to where we can buy it.
They have doubtless used such data to inform their ad targeting algorithms, and the text of the settlement has not been published so we can only speculate, but it seems like it would require a big reset of any weights that have been calculated.
This is good news, along with the fact that Chrome will disable 3rd party cookies this year.
Re: (Score:2)
Check the date.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's known that ISPs sell browsing history to the government
Cite?
AFAICT, it's known that AT&T did provide a surprising amount of support for law enforcement access, to the point of providing them an office, etc., in AT&T facilities, and that the FBI compensated them for that. This was at least a decade ago. Beyond that, I'm unaware of any evidence that the government buys browsing history (or other data) from ISPs. Why would they pay, when they can just issue a subpoena, search warrant or National Security Letter, and they appear to have no lack of judges
Re:A bit late (Score:4, Informative)
It became legal for ISPs to sell the data back in 2017
https://futurism.com/congress-... [futurism.com]
And the government is purchasing it
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/26... [cnn.com]
Whether or not the purchase had a middleman doesn't mean much to me, since there is no law limiting the government from doing it, and the end is the same. Mind you, it's not long ago now that we learned the FBI paid twitter for information on its users
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A bit late (Score:4, Insightful)
They've already used that data and/or sold it.
Google does not sell data.
They used the data to place ads. So what? That just means you saw some ads tailored to your interests. How did that harm you?
The real problem is that the data's existence means it can be subpoenaed by the police or a civil litigant, or stolen. Destroying the data solves that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I use neither Google or Chrome, so it doesn't affect me since I don't see whatever ads they're pushing out. Which isn't the issue. They've used other people's data while lying about NOT using people's data. That is the issue.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
while lying about NOT using people's data.
No, Google did not lie.
Google has repeatedly and clearly said that they track you in incognito mode.
If you thought otherwise, it was because you weren't paying attention.
The problem is that most people don't read the terms, and thought they weren't being tracked despite Google telling them they were.
That is the issue.
No, it isn't. Nobody lied to you. And if you want compensation for being oblivious, you need to show actual damages.
Re: (Score:2)
I knew that - so when I want to go incognito, I open Firefox and use its private mode - and search with DuckDuckGo. Am I being naive thinking that nothing's being tracked in that mode?
I'm kind of fine with the trade-off of 'services for my data - for ad targeting only' during normal search operations. Of course, at some point the inescapability of ads has made me give up on Facebook and the Google News reader (for which I still haven't found an equally simple alternative). Facebook has the most evil of
Re: (Score:2)
I knew that - so when I want to go incognito, I open Firefox and use its private mode - and search with DuckDuckGo. Am I being naive thinking that nothing's being tracked in that mode?
Run noscript or the like and see what happens.
Private mode means that your search and site history is not stored on your computer.
But you can make things a little better with noscript and block everything that has to do anything to do with Google. Is it perfect? Well, no. It does put them in their place mostly. Just remember is any strange scripts keep showing up, find out who they are.
Re: (Score:2)
I knew that - so when I want to go incognito, I open Firefox and use its private mode - and search with DuckDuckGo. Am I being naive thinking that nothing's being tracked in that mode?
Yes, you are, you're being tracked in exactly the same way as with Chrome's incognito mode, with the minor exception that Google probably doesn't get data from DDG.
This is the heart of the complaint about Google. Many people assumed (even though Chrome told them otherwise) that they weren't tracked in incognito mode, but in fact servers -- including Google Analytics -- were still tracking them by their IP address. No cookies or other information from the non-incognito browser windows are sent, but it's
Re: (Score:2)
"No google did not lie"
The entire premise of the lawsuit is that they've been tracking people and lying about incognito mode.. https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:1)
I can't conclude that they only used the data to tailor advertising, since Google could also use the data to persuade and manipulate people to think and act the way they want them to, and that is the main problem. It should be evident by now that we are all susceptible to such manipulation.
Re: A bit late (Score:2)
Re: A bit late (Score:2)
You're talking like you know what all Google does with your data but you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Literally? That *would* be a nice April Fool's trick.
I hate April Fools on Slashdot... (Score:2)
It used to be cute, like 15 years ago, but now it is just tired and sad.
Re: I hate April Fools on Slashdot... (Score:1)
and all benefits they have aquired (Score:2)
non-paywalled link (Score:2)
non-paywalled link to this news story
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't /. use reference links like this one [archive.is] to TFA?
Re: (Score:2)
/. Absolutely could use an archive link if the people who submit these things submit them with an archive link.
"Pledges" are worthless (Score:3)
Make a hard contract: Each year an independent audit with full access takes place. If they are found to be lying, the CEO goes behind bars for 10 years and everybody affected gets $1000, no questions asked. Maybe with that they would deserve some trust. As it is, they deserve none.
"and all derived assets from the data..." ? (Score:1)
There is one valid use case (Score:2)
Incognito mode never did really protect you from being tracked, and the settlement won't change that.
But there are two good use cases for incognito mode.
If you need to borrow someone else's computer, or use a kiosk like in a hotel, incognito mode (now called "Guest" mode) prevents any of your passwords or credit card numbers, from being saved on that shared system.
Also, it's a great developer tool for testing web sites you are developing, to ensure they work when the browser is in a "clean" state.