If you want money, you sue Google or join a class-action against it. Besides, Google's violation doesn't really hurt any users; it's just illegal and wrong.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google to Pay $17 Million Settlement to States in Safari Privacy Circumvention Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you want money, you sue Google or join a class-action against it. Besides, Google's violation doesn't really hurt any users; it's just illegal and wrong.
About 2 hours apparently.
Be like the courts fining an individual $50 but if is was you are me, we'd probably get 5+ years in prison.
It would make more sense to shut these companies down for say 2 weeks, THAT would really get their attention.
----------
Nope, don't fine them money, force them to 100% close down for 2-4 weeks
That will cost a LOT of money, but will also force users to consider other options and THAT is the part which will cause them to sit up and take note.
Your post made me think. Remember the time Apple had to put a notice on their webpage that "samsung didn't copy" their products? Kinda similar to how some judges get people to wear a sign like "I'm a thieft", or "I stole from this establishment".
I think it would've been fitting if it was ruled that google must state on their homepage their wrong doings for a few weeks. In nice big writing, something short and to the point. Im sure the ultimate repercussion to google would be worse than a $17 million fine.
Let me guess--this money will go to state bureaucrats, not the residents of the states who were spied on? Yippee.
Yeah... something like "We ARE Evil", perhaps they could put a photo of Mike Myers on there as Dr Evil saying "My kind of people"
Privacy
I think this is a misnomer for the real concern. Yes, they know where you go. What you like. What kind of thing you just might click on if you see it next to the story. But everything does that. That's the nature of the web. To be a member of a website, you have to have a token of some kind.
The thing that made this wrong is that my purposely-checked option that I want no third-party cookies by advertisers was gone around behind my back. If they offered you better prices for checking that box, or something like that, it would be another thing.
I recently got a pretty fast cable modem of 30-40 Mbps, and I've been depressed over and over to see the page itself load fast. Then various ads come in at different times from many different servers, and I can't imagine who designed this crap system. HTML 5 and CSS are wonderful. You can look precise and as well-designed as a glossy magazine. With a fast connection you get the picture and the main text in seconds. Bang. And then, for the next 20 seconds, one ad pops in. Another one pops on and the page dances up and down. You can't possibly read the text for 20 seconds or so. It makes you nervous. When it eventually settles down, it's okay. I've used an adblocker in the past, and I may soon put one in again.
But that's on a good-looking site! Try an experiment. Type the name of some software available widely on the web. A video player, a codec collection, Flash. I'm looking at YOU, C/Net. There are four or five identical green "Download" buttons on the page, and they all point to crapware you didn't go to the site to find! I tried to download Flash -- why -- the other night, and try as hard as I could, I ended up downloading some virus doctor, a Mac utility I didn't want, and then and only then, the latest Flash. I know, why? But the customer is treated like dirt so often on the "free and open" Internet. A bunch of low-class hustlers. Large areas of the web are getting like light-night informercials.
I think this is a misnomer for the real concern. Yes, they know where you go. What you like. What kind of thing you just might click on if you see it next to the story. But everything does that. That's the nature of the web. To be a member of a website, you have to have a token of some kind.
The thing that made this wrong is that my purposely-checked option that I want no third-party cookies by advertisers was gone around behind my back. If they offered you better prices for checking that box, or something like that, it would be another thing.
I recently got a pretty fast cable modem of 30-40 Mbps, and I've been depressed over and over to see the page itself load fast. Then various ads come in at different times from many different servers, and I can't imagine who designed this crap system. HTML 5 and CSS are wonderful. You can look precise and as well-designed as a glossy magazine. With a fast connection you get the picture and the main text in seconds. Bang. And then, for the next 20 seconds, one ad pops in. Another one pops on and the page dances up and down. You can't possibly read the text for 20 seconds or so. It makes you nervous. When it eventually settles down, it's okay. I've used an adblocker in the past, and I may soon put one in again.
But that's on a good-looking site! Try an experiment. Type the name of some software available widely on the web. A video player, a codec collection, Flash. I'm looking at YOU, C/Net. There are four or five identical green "Download" buttons on the page, and they all point to crapware you didn't go to the site to find! I tried to download Flash -- why -- the other night, and try as hard as I could, I ended up downloading some virus doctor, a Mac utility I didn't want, and then and only then, the latest Flash. I know, why? But the customer is treated like dirt so often on the "free and open" Internet. A bunch of low-class hustlers. Large areas of the web are getting like light-night informercials.
I don't want money, never said I did. I just don't see why the government would get money from it. Especially with the size of the fine. $17 million fine to Google is nothing more than a parking ticket to the average joe. Depending on the data Google got its hands on before they had to stop they may be able to use that to make the money back. I feel if you are going to fine companies of their size, at least make it hurt a little bit.
still doesn't affect the stock market
Pathological gamblers often fail to take into account objective evidence....
In any case, anybody notice that executives of big companies like banks, IT companies, news empires etc. hardly ever go to jail in spite of the fact their companies get fined massive amounts for breaking the law? Heck, they hardly ever even have their obscene bonuses docked. I want proverbial blood - heads should roll when a company violates the law.
what $17 million is a ridiculously small amount to pay for massive infringement of a users data. I'm 100% positive google will have made more in ads, with this software misuse alone to warrant it's use or future loops.
This is not a big enough fine to discourage it from doing more of the same in the future.
I don't think google is evil but it certainly acts in some rather destructive ways that undermine many businesses in established markets.
I kinda think using AD profits to supplement areas it has no business in is very bad for the world in general. I like many block adverts online and would rather pay for a product than get it for free with ads.
This is not a big enough fine to discourage it from doing more of the same in the future.
I don't think google is evil but it certainly acts in some rather destructive ways that undermine many businesses in established markets.
I kinda think using AD profits to supplement areas it has no business in is very bad for the world in general. I like many block adverts online and would rather pay for a product than get it for free with ads.
Where do people come up with these ideas? I'm pretty sure you were joking (please sweet Jeebus tell me this person was joking). If you weren't joking there is something fundamentally wrong with your though process.
Google got fined for circumventing Safari security and placing cookies on web pages. You do realize this is about ads right?
Bolded: Pretty myopic view. So your answer is to punish everyone. To what end? So people who depend on Google services to make a living should put their lives on hold so a point gets proven? Also y...
PSA announcement: I realized I have been typing a response to a hyperbolic post that should have just languished and died. Seriously though about deleting my post but let this serve as a warning. Do not get sucked in.
I am sorry. Our coffee service did not deliver this morning and I am PO'd.
Those that think Google is something to be "afraid" of when it comes to privacy need to consider 2 things.
Since data is SO much a part of their business model - the misappropriation of it would devastate the entire company. It is in their VERY BEST INTEREST to keep your data safe.
Google is not remotely as nefarious as several other organizations who have much more data on you without any transparency at all.
Since data is SO much a part of their business model - the misappropriation of it would devastate the entire company. It is in their VERY BEST INTEREST to keep your data safe.
Google is not remotely as nefarious as several other organizations who have much more data on you without any transparency at all.
Last edited:
Smart; and sneaky as hell. Now if only they could get sued for foisting Google+ on us and settle or lose
Nice to know Connecticut found yet another way to steal money.
It should be going to users not the States.
It should be going to users not the States.
Why even bother to fine them if its going to be such a small amount. Lets face it Google won't even miss $17m. If an individual was doing this they would probably get some jail time. Though I suppose the US government is doing much worse and they get away with it so hardly surprising.