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: Ninja
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: Ninja
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: Ninja
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
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Security Operations and IT Operations: Finding the Path to Collaboration
A wide gulf has emerged between SOC and NOC teams that's keeping both of them from assuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of IT systems. Here's how experts think it should be bridged.
Flash Poll
New Best Practices for Secure App Development
New Best Practices for Secure App Development
The transition from DevOps to SecDevOps is combining with the move toward cloud computing to create new challenges - and new opportunities - for the information security team. Download this report, to learn about the new best practices for secure application development.
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2017-0290
Published: 2017-05-09
NScript in mpengine in Microsoft Malware Protection Engine with Engine Version before 1.1.13704.0, as used in Windows Defender and other products, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (type confusion and application crash) via crafted JavaScript code within ...

CVE-2016-10369
Published: 2017-05-08
unixsocket.c in lxterminal through 0.3.0 insecurely uses /tmp for a socket file, allowing a local user to cause a denial of service (preventing terminal launch), or possibly have other impact (bypassing terminal access control).

CVE-2016-8202
Published: 2017-05-08
A privilege escalation vulnerability in Brocade Fibre Channel SAN products running Brocade Fabric OS (FOS) releases earlier than v7.4.1d and v8.0.1b could allow an authenticated attacker to elevate the privileges of user accounts accessing the system via command line interface. With affected version...

CVE-2016-8209
Published: 2017-05-08
Improper checks for unusual or exceptional conditions in Brocade NetIron 05.8.00 and later releases up to and including 06.1.00, when the Management Module is continuously scanned on port 22, may allow attackers to cause a denial of service (crash and reload) of the management module.

CVE-2017-0890
Published: 2017-05-08
Nextcloud Server before 11.0.3 is vulnerable to an inadequate escaping leading to a XSS vulnerability in the search module. To be exploitable a user has to write or paste malicious content into the search dialogue.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
In past years, security researchers have discovered ways to hack cars, medical devices, automated teller machines, and many other targets. Dark Reading Executive Editor Kelly Jackson Higgins hosts researcher Samy Kamkar and Levi Gundert, vice president of threat intelligence at Recorded Future, to discuss some of 2016's most unusual and creative hacks by white hats, and what these new vulnerabilities might mean for the coming year.