x PhoneArena is looking for new authors in New York! To view all available positions, click here.
  • Options
    Close




Google agrees to pay $17 million for skirting Safari privacy

0. phoneArena 18 Nov 2013, 16:18 posted on

Apple likes to default user settings to as private as possible, which means by default Safari doesn't accept any 3rd-party cookies to be set. That is a very annoying policy for a company like Google, because Google makes its money on being able to serve users specific information on the web. So, Google skirted Safari's privacy settings and now has to pay $17 million in damages...

This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 16:19 6

1. Ninetysix (Posts: 1484; Member since: 08 Oct 2012)


All your Info are Belong to us

--Google

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 18:43 5

14. quesoesgrande (Posts: 217; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)


I don't thing Google would release such a grammatically broken statement.

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 19:10 2

15. GadgetsMcGoo (Posts: 163; Member since: 15 Mar 2013)


That's a really old internet meme.

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 20:59

19. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3360; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


The Big G is watching you.

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 22:16 11

23. willard12 (Posts: 739; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)


It's not like they have my fingerprint.

posted on 19 Nov 2013, 08:45 1

27. nexusdude (Posts: 147; Member since: 22 Aug 2013)


BUUUURN!

posted on 19 Nov 2013, 16:04

32. Nexus_bear (Posts: 32; Member since: 19 Nov 2013)


no, just our face. for face unlock.

but +1 for the zing!!!

posted on 19 Nov 2013, 14:01

30. jacko1977 (Posts: 388; Member since: 11 Feb 2012)


if ur not doing anything wrong then y worry about it i dont

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 16:34 5

2. arcq12 (Posts: 733; Member since: 13 Oct 2011)


Google is starting to become annoying these days.

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 16:39

3. medicci37 (Posts: 616; Member since: 19 Nov 2011)


Yes, it is

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 20:14

18. Pancholo (Posts: 377; Member since: 27 Feb 2012)


I'm still trying to understand what said damages are. Maybe I'm being ignorant right now, but when I see "damages" in these things, I'm used to think first about financial harm in the context of sales, etc. Was it just for Google overriding Apple's privacy policy? Isn't there more?

posted on 19 Nov 2013, 16:06

33. Nexus_bear (Posts: 32; Member since: 19 Nov 2013)


there were no monetary damages, but its a nice rounded number to thats far less than a court feud,

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 21:00

20. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3360; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


Starting to? I think they already were.

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 23:06 2

24. ncarlosmiguel (Posts: 206; Member since: 14 May 2013)


To butthurt iFans they always were.

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 16:42 1

4. darkkjedii (Posts: 10645; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)


Bad google, 17 million in time out for you. That's like $17 for me.

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 17:34 2

6. Sauce (unregistered)


Exactly lol. Pocket change. There should be better consequenced fines taking place for big boy companies like Apple, Google, and others. Ever heard of Switz's system for speeding violations?

"Switzerland doesn't have fixed fines for speeding. Instead they use a formula similar to that in Finland where the fine is calculated based on the vehicle's speed and the driver's income. Back in 2002, Nokia executive Anssi Vanjoki had to pay a fine of $103,600 for going 47 mph in a 31 mph zone."

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 18:22

10. darkkjedii (Posts: 10645; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)


Wow really, that's f'd up.

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 18:26

11. Shatter (Posts: 1999; Member since: 29 May 2013)


Lol $103600 for 16 over, thats insane.

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 19:17 2

16. downphoenix (Posts: 2295; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)


honestly that is the way it should be. In america its the opposite, the police officer wouldnt even write the ticket on an executive for fear of his job. But if its some poor sap? Hit em with everything.

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 22:09

22. Reluctant_Human (Posts: 847; Member since: 28 Jun 2012)


I like that policy. This way a speeding ticket carries the same penalty depending how much you make.

posted on 19 Nov 2013, 17:59

34. rusticguy (Posts: 2826; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)


So he couldn't afford a driver?

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 17:55

8. sprockkets (Posts: 1155; Member since: 16 Jan 2012)


You remember that the next time you make a mistake and run into someone on the road and end up paying $200 for a fine, or as you want it, a minimum plus x of your income.

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 16:45 4

5. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)


Google has got to stop using the "No harm, no foul" excuse. It's getting old.

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 20:08 2

17. Pancholo (Posts: 377; Member since: 27 Feb 2012)


How did they harm you, though? Report me them damages!

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 17:37 5

7. HASHTAG (unregistered)


I guess I'm the only person who isn't bothered by this.

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 18:28

12. Shatter (Posts: 1999; Member since: 29 May 2013)


I don't care because I don't even see ads on my android devices.

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2190753

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 18:00 1

9. Whateverman (Posts: 3189; Member since: 17 May 2009)


It should have been more! Make it hurt or else they won't learn. I'd say 100 million is enough to make them think twice.

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 18:29

13. JakeLee (Posts: 906; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)


Samsung will be BY FAR THE no.1 when it comes down to the sum they gonna pay for a fine for leaking confidential information the COURT EXPRESSLY ORDERED NOT TO.

It isn't about harm anymore, but a LESSON the COURT HAS TO GIVE.

It gonna hurt.

posted on 19 Nov 2013, 11:12

28. quesoesgrande (Posts: 217; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)


What the hell are you talking about? Samsung has nothing to do with this.

posted on 18 Nov 2013, 21:48

21. gallitoking (Posts: 4684; Member since: 17 May 2011)


Wow.. Google you have been just placed in my naughty list

posted on 19 Nov 2013, 14:04

31. jacko1977 (Posts: 388; Member since: 11 Feb 2012)


crapple does the same

posted on 19 Nov 2013, 00:39

25. shahrooz (Posts: 118; Member since: 17 Sep 2013)


haha damage is done to the user's privacy but apple gets paid.

posted on 19 Nov 2013, 08:19

26. JunitoNH (Posts: 866; Member since: 15 Feb 2012)


And people say Apple is evil...........ok...................

posted on 19 Nov 2013, 11:15

29. quesoesgrande (Posts: 217; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)


Both companies are at fault here. Apple refused to put Google's patch into Safari. Apple could've avoided all of this AND improved security for its users if it had just used Google's patch.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories