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
14. quesoesgrande (Posts: 208; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)
I don't thing Google would release such a grammatically broken statement.
32. Nexus_bear (Posts: 22; Member since: 19 Nov 2013)
no, just our face. for face unlock.
but +1 for the zing!!!
30. jacko1977 (Posts: 376; Member since: 11 Feb 2012)
if ur not doing anything wrong then y worry about it i dont
2. arcq12 (Posts: 733; Member since: 13 Oct 2011)
Google is starting to become annoying these days.
18. Pancholo (Posts: 365; Member since: 27 Feb 2012)
33. Nexus_bear (Posts: 22; Member since: 19 Nov 2013)
there were no monetary damages, but its a nice rounded number to thats far less than a court feud,
4. darkkjedii (Posts: 8877; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Bad google, 17 million in time out for you. That's like $17 for me.
6. Sauce (Posts: 721; Member since: 28 Apr 2013)
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."
16. downphoenix (Posts: 2134; 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.
22. Reluctant_Human (Posts: 753; Member since: 28 Jun 2012)
I like that policy. This way a speeding ticket carries the same penalty depending how much you make.
8. sprockkets (Posts: 830; 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.
5. ardent1 (Posts: 1968; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
Google has got to stop using the "No harm, no foul" excuse. It's getting old.
17. Pancholo (Posts: 365; Member since: 27 Feb 2012)
How did they harm you, though? Report me them damages!
7. HASHTAG (unregistered)
I guess I'm the only person who isn't bothered by this.
12. Shatter (Posts: 1744; Member since: 29 May 2013)
I don't care because I don't even see ads on my android devices.
9. Whateverman (Posts: 3150; 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.
13. JakeLee (Posts: 372; 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.
28. quesoesgrande (Posts: 208; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)
What the hell are you talking about? Samsung has nothing to do with this.
21. gallitoking (Posts: 4623; Member since: 17 May 2011)
Wow.. Google you have been just placed in my naughty list
25. shahrooz (Posts: 80; Member since: 17 Sep 2013)
haha damage is done to the user's privacy but apple gets paid.
26. JunitoNH (Posts: 707; Member since: 15 Feb 2012)
And people say Apple is evil...........ok...................
29. quesoesgrande (Posts: 208; 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.