UK Supreme Court Sides With Google in Lawsuit Over Alleged Tracking of iOS Safari Users Without Their Consent

[bsamcash]

Does the UK not have samaritan laws? I forget what it’s called, but it’s when you have an obligation to help strangers because you positioned yourself to help.

I don't believe that type of law exists in the US either. Unless you mean Good Samaritan Laws which protects those who try to help from litigation.

 

[4jasontv]

I don't believe that type of law exists in the US either. Unless you mean Good Samaritan Laws which protects those who try to help from litigation.

I thought the Good Samarian Law included a clause that states once you start helping you have to continue until you are relieved because others that might have been able to help could pass by because they assume you are helping.

 

[MuppetGate]

I don't care who gets the money, just so long as Google pays the price. If you lie to consumers about how you use their information, you need to pay a big price. If you lie to the random public who are not your customers about collecting their information and selling it, that should be criminal.

Then we have the same problem they have in America; lots of shady lawyers trying to make a fast buck by dropping dumb lawsuits in the hope a company will pay up just to make it go away.

Someone has to make a genuine complaint, and the reality is that not enough people care that much about their personal info.

 

[Knightayres1]

It’s been known that google tracks everything you do for years. So if people still use them then I guess they like to be tracked. I quit using them years ago.

 

[Carrotcruncher]

The bottom line is that the UK does not have a class action mechanism (apart from special circumstances). Hence the claim was incompetent as "officious litigation, embarked upon on behalf of individuals who have not authorised it".

Special circumstances? if tracking milllions without consent and lying about it isnt special circumstances what is ?

 

[VulchR]

The bottom line is that the UK does not have a class action mechanism (apart from special circumstances). Hence the claim was incompetent as "officious litigation, embarked upon on behalf of individuals who have not authorised it".

Or, in other words, welcome to post-Brexit UK, where companies will be deregulated and allowed to do what they want without review by the EU. Note that UK government has already announced a review of online privacy measures (see https://www.theguardian.com/technol...vacy-rules-in-post-brexit-departure-from-gdpr).

Anyway I find this ruling odd in the extreme. The lawyers didn't have permission from people who were covertly tracked without their permission and who, in all likelihood, were unaware of being tracked. Surely the sane thing to do is to force Google to provide a list of who was tracked, and then ask people on that list whether they support the lawsuit rather than simply dismissing the lawsuit out of hand for lack of standing.

 

[jlc1978]

Does the UK not have samaritan laws? I forget what it’s called, but it’s when you have an obligation to help strangers because you positioned yourself to help.

Samaritan laws protect someone who renders aid from being sued for rendering aid, not creating a general requirement to render aid.

There are times when you must render aid, for example if you are a caretaker of the injured or caused the injury, depending on jurisdiction.

 

[RONS67]

I don't believe the question before the court was who would benefit most or whether those of us who dislike (as in "hate with a vengeance") Google authorized this lawsuit.

 

[4jasontv]

Samaritan laws protect someone who renders aid from being sued for rendering aid, not creating a general requirement to render aid.

There are times when you must render aid, for example if you are a caretaker of the injured or caused the injury, depending on jurisdiction.

Explain Seinfeld.

 

[Skewlovevism]

I think they concluded it was a complete waste of time as 'millions' of people did not give their consent for the law case against google being performed under their names. So the court has in effect throwing the case out highlighting it as a waste of time and only the lawyers will be the beneficiaries from such a case, not the consumers. That's how I've read it.

I also wonder if this means google has not breached any U.K. privacy laws as such either if they've thrown the case out?

*my opinion only*

Golden Rule # 1 - Never argue with your boss. From this, you can see, who really rules our lives.
Corps → Governments → Government bodies → Animals → Insect → ... → Citizens

Microsoft guy decides world's health policies, Google/ Facebook/ Youtube decides, what is fact or not.
（spoiler, Youtube definition of "Misinformation" is not an "incorrect" information, but any information of a different view, than their guidelines) if you not believe me, look it up, it is right there in open for you.
And worst is, most of people are fine with it. It seems to me, that common sense is as rare as an unicorn, these days.

Unlawful actions against citizens are not deemed "important" nowadays.

I understand, some might disagree or get angry with me for saying so, but truth is truth, no matter how many believe it, or not.