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
If this works how I explained, then it's probably impossible for Apple to close the loophole and it probably wasn't "exploited" by Google on purpose at first (but when made aware of the issue, they should have fixed it immediately with their "test_cookie=CheckPermission" technique they are now using).
Might I recommend:
The results are clean and remind me of how Google search used to look.
If you want to both laugh and cringe, visit here for why it makes sense to avoid certain search engines.
Sure, the hack was intentional, but most likely only known about by the programmer and/or his little group that added it.
(Very doubtful that anyone high up would've approved, at least not without covering themselves with a disclaimer somewhere.)
The mass public seems to have this bizarre idea that software is watched over and vetted all the time. That rarely happens even with critical software such as space system or casino or banking or factory control code. More often, a top developer is simply trusted and if tests go okay, the code is released.
Never look for a conspiracy if something can be explained by sheer stupidity. I'm sure in this case a developer simply thought it was a brilliant workaround and freaked when they found out it caused such a ruckus. (Been there.)
While I know generally what happens to your privacy via Google searches, seeing it listed in detail is indeed scary - though your link has a funny example ("Likes: Herpes" )
Yes, and the homeowner who left his door unlocked should be jailed for being victimized in a home-invasion robbery.
Second
I second the motion...wait...how do we go about this shutting down process?
I second the motion...wait...how do we go about this shutting down process?
Thanks for the info
So some brilliant software engineers have absolutely no moral compass at all, and are happily planning little "software pranks" that they can insert into the software we all use in our daily lives? How reassuring. Since they apparently have no inner personal morality to guide them, it might be a good idea for upper management to let it be known that they do frown on this kind of activity, and anyone caught doing it will be fired immediately. It appears this was not Googles policy at the time. I wonder if it has since changed?
So some brilliant software engineers have absolutely no moral compass at all, and are happily planning little "software pranks" that they can insert into the software we all use in our daily lives? How reassuring. Since they apparently have no inner personal morality to guide them, it might be a good idea for upper management to let it be known that they do frown on this kind of activity, and anyone caught doing it will be fired immediately. It appears this was not Googles policy at the time. I wonder if it has since changed?
Where as I agree, move on. I however can not agree to it being an honest mistake. Pretty sure Google saw that loophole and took full advantage of the opportunity. As others have said. It's chump change to them compared to the amount they make/made off of what they did.
Just about everyone that does online shopping or banking needs to have cookies enabled. If any default precautions are set by browser manufacturers, it should be a mild alert:
Internet Explorer 9 has become a consternation for shopping cart programmers because apparently, like Safari, cookies are disabled by default.
Geez
One can only imagine what Google does to its "own" herd using Android....all sorts of hidden privacy workarounds to jack up ad money.
This is what happens when a company is founded on getting their money from ad companies and not from selling SW and/or HW to consumers who actually CHOOSE to buy the companies product.
Google makes MS look like choir boys.....they are just SLIMEY!!!
One can only imagine what Google does to its "own" herd using Android....all sorts of hidden privacy workarounds to jack up ad money.
This is what happens when a company is founded on getting their money from ad companies and not from selling SW and/or HW to consumers who actually CHOOSE to buy the companies product.
Google makes MS look like choir boys.....they are just SLIMEY!!!
Yes, but this just seems less evil. I'm directing this at the people here calling Google "evil", by the way. So you're loading their ads, and they get to know which ads you load? That doesn't seem very evil, and having more data on the users as a whole is always good, like the US Census.
----------
Wait what? Is this some new thing in Safari 6? The security must be getting tighter and tighter. It's like the TSA. I can't just click "download" now and have it download the DMG for me, open the DMG, and open the installer
Nobody said it was a prank. It was someone's job to figure out how to get cookies stored under various situations. A brilliant, but probably not very world-wise, young programmer is very likely to make the mistake of thinking any solution is okay.
Now you're shooting at the right target. At Google, developers are king. It'd be a pity to change that dynamic, but obviously some more oversight would be helpful.
I've said it a million times: sometimes people make dumb moves. It doesn't mean the company they work for is somehow evil because of their goofs.
It's like when that poor programmer at Apple didn't put any limit or expiration date on the location lookup cache. Remember all the idiotic paranoia and claims that Apple was tracking people? We all screw up at times. That's real life.
That's what Google likely thought, so they settled real quick. Some day this attitude will come back and bite them at the ass. More and more people don't like them now, and it's weird when you're the company which give people great services for free but people still dislike you anyway. This is so different from Apple that charge you dearly.
They didn't get what they deserve. $22.5 million is about seven hours of their earnings. What they did violates their supposed motto of do no evil. This is ridiculous. This fine should have a B in it, as in billions.
Billions would be a "G". Billions seems like an unfair amount for something that did no harm to anyone. And the amount of money Google makes per hour is irrelevant to their punishment amount.
Yes, I think all the major software companies would do well to establish a "code of conduct" so to speak, some kind of ethical standard that they use throughout the company. Bringing this idea to the forefront seems to be badly needed in todays competitive market. It appears that with most companies, the motto "anything goes as long as we win" is what they live and die by. As long as this is the prevailing philosophy, everybody loses.
You don't have to imagine nothing, it is open source and you can look at what it does but it is easier to believe in conspiracies.
And the last time I looked, smartphones were not free.
Yes, and the homeowner who left his door unlocked should be jailed for being victimized in a home-invasion robbery.
If the homeowner had been informed that he left his door open and that robbers were snooping around, and decided not to close it then its his own damn problem.
Apple knew about the issue LONG before Google were found to be accidentally exploiting it (yes, it was an accident, a blatant one...they just didn't fix it from their end quick enough when they found out). As far as I can see, Apple are as much at fault as Google here.
Both screed up...not really in a meaningful or big way though, it's been blown way out of proportion by the tin-foil hat club who are convinced some greasy haired hipster sits at a desk in Google HQ looking at their browsing history.
Unless I'm misreading you, what you are saying seems at odds with the reports. I bolded the relevant part. The OP says that, and I quote:
MacRumors said:
The original Wall Street Journal article went into more depth, but here are two of the most important lines:
WSJ said:
The major problem is the circumvention did not require any interaction on the user's part other than simply visiting a webpage, contrary to what you say when you claim:
KnightWRX said:
No ads had to be clicked for the tracking to occur, and that is precisely the issue here. Invisible forms should not be submitted on your behalf.