Risk

Google Settles With State AGs On Privacy

Google agrees to pay $17 million to 37 states to settle claims it circumvented cookie-blocking controls in Apple's Safari browser.

Image credit: Flickr user ssoosay.
Image credit: Flickr user ssoosay.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Strategist
11/23/2013 | 10:56:59 PM
Re: Narrow scope
Yeah, for true privacy, hidden services like Tor are still the way to go.

As Bruce Schneier put it in a September blog post on security in the wake of NSA revelations: "Use Tor to anonymize yourself. Yes, the NSA targets Tor users, but it's work for them. The less obvious you are, the safer you are."

Anything that makes it harder for a government agency to track you presumably makes it harder for marketers to track you.
Tom Murphy
50%
50%
Tom Murphy,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/22/2013 | 4:07:38 PM
Re: Narrow scope
Now you're talking, Tom. The internet is a network controlled by the end user.  If we can block people from tracking us at that level, it's comparable to pulling down the shade in our homes -- and everyone should have that right. 

I wonder if that's a feature that computer makers can build right into the machine because, clearly, trying to build it into  browswer didn't work in this case. 
Or do we all need to start bouncing our signals aroudn the world like spammers to avoid being connected with our words.

 
Thomas Claburn
100%
0%
Thomas Claburn,
User Rank: Moderator
11/22/2013 | 4:01:57 PM
Re: Narrow scope
The only way I see tracking diminishing is if those being tracked have equal power to obscure their footprints, as compared to those who are tracking them. And that's just not the way the law works: It's illegal to jam someone else's cell phone for example, to carry a set of lights to blind surveillance cameras, or to emit high-frequency radiation from a device to cripple nearby electronics. Tracking is set up as a right and tracking avoidance is considered suspicious. But it's time to revisit those assumptions. 
Tom Murphy
50%
50%
Tom Murphy,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/22/2013 | 3:48:19 PM
Re: Narrow scope
Tom: You're right of course, but the concept of tracking is not. That's the point. One technology merely replaces another, and barring one in one context won't resolve the underlying issue. 
Thomas Claburn
50%
50%
Thomas Claburn,
User Rank: Moderator
11/22/2013 | 3:44:47 PM
Re: Narrow scope
"While this could be a step in a long path to ending cookies..."

Cookies are already slated for obsolecence. See:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304682504579157780178992984

 
Tom Murphy
50%
50%
Tom Murphy,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/22/2013 | 12:33:17 PM
Narrow scope
While this could be a step in a long path to ending cookies, this seems quite limited in scope. First, it's a settlement involving Google's efforts on Apple browsers -- both big players, but this won't affect the majority of users who use other browsers and/or search engines. Second, the language says: "Google shall not employ HTTP form POST functionality that uses JavaScript." That blocks a leading way to deploy cookies, but not any others.  Third, not all browswer makers will want to bar cookies given that some cookies are useful to consumers and the browser may not gain wide acceptance in the broader, cookie-addicted industry.

Don't get me wrong. I'm pro-privacy, but I think the FTC and other governmental organizations need to address the issue on a broader level than through expensive, time-consuming, one-off settlements.  And they need to do it without causing serious economic harm to a surprisingly still-fragile and still-evolving Internet economy.  This can help shape this economy as it matures and create a stable, secure business environment that respects privacy.

Is that asking too much from an industry that is less than 20 years old?  Isn't it better to tackle this now before these issues start gaining the patina of accepted practices?
melgross
50%
50%
melgross,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/22/2013 | 12:21:06 PM
Some fine!
This is a slap on the wrist. Big companies assume that they might be caught at some point. They weigh the advantage of what they're doing against any fines and court costs they may incurr, and then go and do it. Google is notorious. User data is the lifeblood of their company. They are really just a glorified advertising company, after all. The fine for this should have been ten times as much, possibly more. Fines should be high enough to grab back any possible benefits the violation may have received, plus a tripling of the number. This will deter companies from doing this. What we have here is Google laughing all the way to the bank.
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading December Tech Digest
Experts weigh in on the pros and cons of end-user security training.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-5395
Published: 2014-11-21
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Huawei HiLink E3276 and E3236 TCPU before V200R002B470D13SP00C00 and WebUI before V100R007B100D03SP01C03, E5180s-22 before 21.270.21.00.00, and E586Bs-2 before 21.322.10.00.889 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of users ...

CVE-2014-7137
Published: 2014-11-21
Multiple SQL injection vulnerabilities in Dolibarr ERP/CRM before 3.6.1 allow remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the (1) contactid parameter in an addcontact action, (2) ligne parameter in a swapstatut action, or (3) project_ref parameter to projet/tasks/contact.php; (4...

CVE-2014-7871
Published: 2014-11-21
SQL injection vulnerability in Open-Xchange (OX) AppSuite before 7.4.2-rev36 and 7.6.x before 7.6.0-rev23 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL commands via a crafted jslob API call.

CVE-2014-8090
Published: 2014-11-21
The REXML parser in Ruby 1.9.x before 1.9.3 patchlevel 551, 2.0.x before 2.0.0 patchlevel 598, and 2.1.x before 2.1.5 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU and memory consumption) a crafted XML document containing an empty string in an entity that is used in a large number of nes...

CVE-2014-8469
Published: 2014-11-21
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Guests/Boots in AdminCP in Moxi9 PHPFox before 4 Beta allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the User-Agent header.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Now that the holiday season is about to begin both online and in stores, will this be yet another season of nonstop gifting to cybercriminals?