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 $22.5 Million Settlement in Safari Privacy Circumvention Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So the message here is that if you deceive some users to make money AND you get caught, you might have to pay a small fine. (To put that in perspective, percentage-wise that would be a $86 fine for someone who makes $100,000 per year about half the cost of a speeding ticket in many states.)
Last edited:
Privacy is and has been dead, whether people believe it or not, but they just went out of their way to be sneaky dicks in this case.
I wonder how this fits in with whatever Orwellian "don't be evil/creepy/make tons o'cash" bs corporate slogan they're following these days...
And $22.5 million is a pathetically small fine, won't deter them from this kind of stuff in the least. New slogan: "Just don't get caught!"
I wonder how this fits in with whatever Orwellian "don't be evil/creepy/make tons o'cash" bs corporate slogan they're following these days...
And $22.5 million is a pathetically small fine, won't deter them from this kind of stuff in the least. New slogan: "Just don't get caught!"
I don't think it's about money. I think this fine is about image. What will you think of a corporate that got fined the biggest on privacy issue, something like that.
The real question....
How much ad revenue to Google receive as a result of this practice? I would imagine its several multiples of the fine and does not represent any real penalty - rather just another expense.
If the FTC wants teeth, they should have forced Google to calculate that amount and fined them for it plus a penalty.
How much ad revenue to Google receive as a result of this practice? I would imagine its several multiples of the fine and does not represent any real penalty - rather just another expense.
If the FTC wants teeth, they should have forced Google to calculate that amount and fined them for it plus a penalty.
The satisfaction of knowing Google was penalized the equivalent of a parking ticket.
Nice entitled attitude. Nobody cares about ONE person, you aren't that special sorry to say. I've been in security a long time. There is a major false sense of "the bad guys are after me".
I believe Google reported to the FTC that they received zero earnings on this particular evil act. Whether you believe Google or not is another matter.
Am I the only one ...
Am I the only one here that sees this as Apple suing someone else for their own mistake?
Apple just got away with adding a feature to block google that didn't block google and instead of fixing it, they just decided to sue google instead.
Am I the only one here that sees this as Apple suing someone else for their own mistake?
Apple just got away with adding a feature to block google that didn't block google and instead of fixing it, they just decided to sue google instead.
They still are. Innovating more ways to liberate dollars from your internet habits.
To be fair - there isn't a company alive not inventing ways to liberate dollars from your wallet. It's called business.
Am I the only one here that sees this as Apple suing someone else for their own mistake?
Apple just got away with adding a feature to block google that didn't block google and instead of fixing it, they just decided to sue google instead.
Google circumvented privacy settings, period. Apple did the right thing
Am I the only one here that sees this as Apple suing someone else for their own mistake?
Apple just got away with adding a feature to block google that didn't block google and instead of fixing it, they just decided to sue google instead.
Apple didn't sue Google, this is the FTC going after Google for privacy issues.
Am I the only one here that sees this as Apple suing someone else for their own mistake?
Apple just got away with adding a feature to block google that didn't block google and instead of fixing it, they just decided to sue google instead.
Apple said that if you INTERACTED with an ad (by clicking somewhere in the ad), you agreed to let that company place cookies on your machine.
Google made the INTERACTION automatic - without you clicking a darn thing! They made the clicks 'for you' with a script, and didn't tell you they did it!
Therefore, Google got more 'hits' on their ads, and more 'viewers' of their ads which is illegal. It's much like your TV turning channels automatically to view ads when you're not at home, and Neilsen tracking the activity, thus increasing 'ratings'.
It just sucks that this is chump change for Google, wish they got hit a little harder. That being said, they deserved it, and their do no evil crap is just that...crap.
No, the case has nothing to do with clicking ads and having more hits.
The case is about using code in the ads to allow page tracking.
Read the links in the post
