Google Facing Tens of Millions of Dollars in Fines over Safari Privacy Circumvention

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by reedmartin

It's easy to make claims like this with no proof on the internet, but do you have any examples of someone successfully winning a case against their landlord for something like this? Or do you just mean i can literally sue my landlord? If so i can sue anyone for anything. Whether the case has any merit is a different story.

Please provide a real world example if you can

No direct examples but in case where the landlord would be negligence and then be liable would be if some one is rob and the landlord failed to replace the locks as tenets move out. Or the locks did not work as they should. Windows did not have locks and so on. Outside lights fail to work (not burnt out but do not work at all) would be another area they could get busted for. Not having working blinds is again something else they could get in trouble for since the tennets could not light up the area around the house or close blinds to prevent people from seeing in.

While the person who robbed the house yes should be busted for it the landlord at the same time failed to meet his/her legal requirement and proved inadequate security.

Apple security on it was that of having only the door knob lock working. the dead bolt did not work.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by reedmartin

Nice try. It clearly says that the tenants asked the landlord multiple times to change the locks and he didn't. How is that comparable to Google actively exploiting a loophole, that Apple immediately patched once notified?

Ok - back to you - can you find me anywhere on the internet that states that Apple wasn't notified of this loophole and just didn't fix it.

See how that works.

Bad analogy to begin with. And I think you're just being contrary to be contrary because it's me. That's cool. I didn't start the analogy. I merely said that both parties could be found guilty of wrong doing. That's accurate. Both parties COULD be found. Whether or not they will is irrelevant. Have a great day reedmartin...

[reedmartin]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

No direct examples but in case where the landlord would be negligence and then be liable would be if some one is rob and the landlord failed to replace the locks as tenets move out. Or the locks did not work as they should. Windows did not have locks and so on. Outside lights fail to work (not burnt out but do not work at all) would be another area they could get busted for. Not having working blinds is again something else they could get in trouble for since the tennets could not light up the area around the house or close blinds to prevent people from seeing in.

While the person who robbed the house yes should be busted for it the landlord at the same time failed to meet his/her legal requirement and proved inadequate security.

Apple security on it was that of having only the door knob lock working. the dead bolt did not work.

But that's not what happened here. Apples security worked just fine. Google realized that Apple accidentally left a key under the mat and instead of telling Apple and returning the key they went in and robbed the place.

If users had been slamming Apple with reports about this exploit and apple laughed it off, then yes they'd be responsible. But they patched it as soon as it came to light. You're saying they should have created perfect software?

Google actively exploited something that Apple was not aware of to gain customer data. Good luck suing Apple for that

Originally Posted by samcraig

Ok - back to you - can you find me anywhere on the internet that states that Apple wasn't notified of this loophole and just didn't fix it.

See how that works.

Bad analogy to begin with. And I think you're just being contrary to be contrary because it's me. That's cool. I didn't start the analogy. I merely said that both parties could be found guilty of wrong doing. That's accurate. Both parties COULD be found. Whether or not they will is irrelevant. Have a great day reedmartin...

Oh get the chip off your shoulder! i don't care if it is you or anyone else. You're giving me an example of a clearly negligent landlord and comparing it to this. These are not like situations.

Yes, you can sue anyone you want. Whether your case has merit is another story...

[5aga]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

No direct examples but in case where the landlord would be negligence and then be liable would be if some one is rob and the landlord failed to replace the locks as tenets move out. Or the locks did not work as they should. Windows did not have locks and so on. Outside lights fail to work (not burnt out but do not work at all) would be another area they could get busted for. Not having working blinds is again something else they could get in trouble for since the tennets could not light up the area around the house or close blinds to prevent people from seeing in.

While the person who robbed the house yes should be busted for it the landlord at the same time failed to meet his/her legal requirement and proved inadequate security.

Apple security on it was that of having only the door knob lock working. the dead bolt did not work.

I agree that Apple's security may not have been top notch however it's not like Google found an open door. They actively bypassed user specific settings using an exploit. THe right thing to do would have been to notify Apple, not trick the app into allowing invisibile forms.

[reedmartin]

Originally Posted by 5aga

I agree that Apple's security may not have been top notch however it's not like Google found an open door. They actively bypassed user specific settings using an exploit. THe right thing to do would have been to notify Apple, not trick the app into allowing invisibile forms.

Exactly, it's not like Google did this by accident. They purposely added code to trick the browser.

I can't believe people are blaming Apple for this, what a joke!

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by 5aga

I agree that Apple's security may not have been top notch however it's not like Google found an open door. They actively bypassed user specific settings using an exploit. THe right thing to do would have been to notify Apple, not trick the app into allowing invisibile forms.

I am sure Apple is sitting pretty (and quiet) on this one waiting for Google to be sued. Why? Because then there's precedent against jailbreaking too.

Both use cases are exploiting Apple's software. Jailbreaking is now legal. This could easily overturn based on exploiting security features...

[5aga]

Originally Posted by samcraig

I am sure Apple is sitting pretty (and quiet) on this one waiting for Google to be sued. Why? Because then there's precedent against jailbreaking too.

Both use cases are exploiting Apple's software. Jailbreaking is now legal. This could easily overturn based on exploiting security features...

two different scenarios. jailbreaking requires user intent and action to accomplish.

What google did was completely bypass user settings to track them against their wishes.

[Thunderhawks]

Originally Posted by nwcs

What is wrong is that the fine goes to the government instead of all of us who use Safari whose privacy was negotiated around. It's impractical, sure, but the damage was done to us not the government.

According to the US Population Census clock

313,483,237 at 10 million that would be 3 cents for everybody!

[reedmartin]

It's funny that Apple using legal means to lower their tax burden equates to being unethical, but Google actively exploiting a security flaw to harvest user data means Apple should have done a better job. Seriously??

[JohnDoe98]

Originally Posted by 2bikes

So Google does this tracking in iOS. What about Android? They don`t track anybody in their own OS?!?

Oh but they do!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...VRQ_story.html

[5aga]

Originally Posted by reedmartin

It's funny that Apple using legal means to lower their tax burden equates to being unethical, but Google actively exploiting a security flaw to harvest user data means Apple should have done a better job. Seriously??

Whats even funnier is that most of Google's "mistakes" and bad PR revolve around privacy issues.

Sure they can afford the fines but how about the constant bad press? oh wait people dont care because it's "free"

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by Canaan

Seriously, this is why I don't use most google apps. (Unfortunately youtube and google search I cannot find suitable alternatives for )

Both Google and Apple collect info on us, and Apple probably has even more:

I understand that they make money tracking people, but the fact that they will utilize exploits and security flaws to do so is really disconcerting.

Likewise, it's a bit disconcerting that Apple forces everyone with their devices to activate via an iTunes account, which is just the beginning of collecting sellable ad data about us.

However, the important thing is that NEITHER company directly sells our data to anyone. What they do, is sell anonymous target audiences.

In other words, an advertiser might say they want their ad shown to people who like so-and-so music. Then whenever an iOS app wants to display an ad, Apple's servers look up our musical taste and see if we should be shown that ad or not. The advertiser themselves have no idea who we are.

[reedmartin]

Originally Posted by kdarling

Both Google and Apple collect info on us, and Apple probably has even more:



Likewise, it's a bit disconcerting that Apple forces everyone with their devices to non-anonymously activate via an iTunes account, which is just the beginning of collecting sellable ad data about us.

However, the important thing is that NEITHER company sells our data to anyone. What they do, is sell anonymous target audiences for ads.

In other words, an advertiser might say they want their ad shown to people who like so-and-so music. Then whenever an iOS app wants to display an ad, Apple's servers look up our iTunes information and see if we should be shown that ad or not. The advertiser themselves have no idea who we are UNLESS we click on their ad.

Is this a justification for doing something without your consent? Or better yet AGAINST your consent and unbeknownst to you?

[JohnDoe98]

Originally Posted by reedmartin

It's funny that Apple using legal means to lower their tax burden equates to being unethical, but Google actively exploiting a security flaw to harvest user data means Apple should have done a better job. Seriously??

Even I who am against Tax loopholes can discern the clear difference here. Google is not only exploiting loopholes but taking it a step further by violating your privacy. Apple didn't do anything legally wrong, so the question of ethics was tricky there. So far as I know your privacy is legally protected.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by 5aga

two different scenarios. jailbreaking requires user intent and action to accomplish.

What google did was completely bypass user settings to track them against their wishes.

Missed the point which was that both are exploiting Apple's iOS. If bypassing Safari via an exploit is illegal then bypassing other iOS elements can be deemed as well. Doesn't matter if it's intentional or not. Abusing an exploit is abusing an exploit.

[apolloa]

Originally Posted by Tee1970

I find the Yahoo mail is better than Gmail. Yahoo has the ability to use folders, lots of options for flagging items for followup, spam, attachments, virus scanning, okay address book, okay calendars, plus works with reminders and notes.

If you are asking if you can set it up to work with an iPhone, Hotmail and Yahoo both work.

Didn't think of Yahoo thanks. I use imap though and would use Hotmail if it supported it fully without having to resort to other apps.

[JohnDoe98]

Originally Posted by 5aga

Whats even funnier is that most of Google's "mistakes" and bad PR revolve around privacy issues.

Sure they can afford the fines but how about the constant bad press? oh wait people dont care because it's "free"

It's not like they have a choice. All their services are built-in around ads. They need to generate money to run the services, and clearly their hardware isn't doing it as it does for Apple. The stricter the privacy becomes the worse it bodes for Google.

[kurosov]

Originally Posted by longofest

In general no, but you can if your landlord was negligent in providing adequate security.

But when you give your keys to someone you trust and that person gives copies out to everyone do you still blame the landlord?

[5aga]

Originally Posted by samcraig

Missed the point which was that both are exploiting Apple's iOS. If bypassing Safari via an exploit is illegal then bypassing other iOS elements can be deemed as well. Doesn't matter if it's intentional or not. Abusing an exploit is abusing an exploit.

actually its two different points.

Again if a user wishes to jailbreak they may do so, its their device. In doing so they choose to open their device to such exploits.

Google intentionally and actively exploited the device against the user's will.

Its not as simple as all hacking is the same.

Google violated user privacy settings.

Obviously if they did no wrong they wouldn't be slapped with fines.

[reedmartin]

Originally Posted by JohnDoe98

It's not like they have a choice. All their services are built-in around ads. They need to generate money to run the services, and clearly their hardware isn't doing it as it does for Apple. The stricter the privacy becomes the worse it bodes for Google.

Honestly, i believe Google when they say they keep your data safe. That's not the issue to me...The issue is the people affected here did not want their data being collected, and Google did so anyway without asking them and without letting them know. That's wrong.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by reedmartin

Is this a justification for doing something without your consent? Or better yet AGAINST your consent and unbeknownst to you?

You missed his point. He's responding to the comments that google is evil. And I am not going to argue whether they are or not - especially to you.

He's stating they BOTH Apple and Google work the same way when it comes to collecting data and whether or not they sell an INDIVIDUAL to another company. Did you really READ his post?

[fa8362]

Tens of millions is nothing to Google. A billion dollar fine, however, would definitely get their attention.

[reedmartin]

Originally Posted by samcraig

You missed his point. He's responding to the comments that google is evil. And I am not going to argue whether they are or not - especially to you.

He's stating they BOTH Apple and Google work the same way when it comes to collecting data and whether or not they sell an INDIVIDUAL to another company. Did you really READ his post?

No. They don't work the same way. Google didn't tell you if they're collecting data and actively exploited ways to collect your data without telling you.

Are you READING the same thread i am?

[5aga]

Originally Posted by samcraig

You missed his point. He's responding to the comments that google is evil. And I am not going to argue whether they are or not - especially to you.

He's stating they BOTH Apple and Google work the same way when it comes to collecting data and whether or not they sell an INDIVIDUAL to another company. Did you really READ his post?

The difference is that by using iTunes I agree to let Apple collect my data.

By using google I am not giving them permission to bypass cookie settings and track me.

[JohnDoe98]

Originally Posted by kdarling

Both Google and Apple collect info on us, and Apple probably has even more:

Have any sources you can share regarding Apple? I'd like to read more about it. Haven't they shifted to always asking you for permission first?

Likewise, it's a bit disconcerting that Apple forces everyone with their devices to activate via an iTunes account, which is just the beginning of collecting sellable ad data about us.

However, the important thing is that NEITHER company directly sells our data to anyone. What they do, is sell anonymous target audiences.

This too.

In other words, an advertiser might say they want their ad shown to people who like so-and-so music. Then whenever an iOS app wants to display an ad, Apple's servers look up our musical taste and see if we should be shown that ad or not. The advertiser themselves have no idea who we are.

Is that how iAd works?