UK Users can Sue Google Over Browser Cookies (+My Blog on this from 2012)
(MacObs):
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/uk-safari-users-can-sue-google-over-unwanted-browser-cookies
"Google lost its fight to keep UK residents from filing lawsuits
over the Safari browser tracking cookies it placed on their
computers even when they explicitly blocked the activity. The
Court of Appeal ruling means potentially millions of people can
file lawsuits against the company over claims that their privacy
has been violated."
- - -
We should really call this situation the "Yet another lawyer
enrichment decision!" -- because that's all that's actually going on
here. The entire brouhaha is a pile of ... well ... you know.
As I noted way back in 2012 about this case:
Google, Safari, and a Clamor of Cookie Confusion
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000937.html
" ... At the time, those discussions were most focused on problems
that sites such as Facebook and Microsoft would have with the new
Safari policy, before Bug 35824 was revolved. Google+ would not
go public for more than another year. But when Google+ did
appear, Google quite appropriately used the provided mechanism of
the 35824 bug fix, for key functionality related to Google+ on
Safari browsers, in very much the same way intended for
Microsoft, Facebook, and other sites. It's at this juncture that
the issue of unintended collateral effects comes into play. As
noted above, cookie handling can be very complex. Nowadays,
traditional cookies have been joined by other (generally less
well known) Web transactional local storage mechanisms, further
complicating the picture. The necessary loosening of Safari
default third-party cookie controls associated with the 35824 bug
fix even further convoluted the cookie handling process. This
ultimately led to some cookies associated with Google's ad
delivery network being mistakenly placed on some Safari users'
browsers, in conflict with what those users might otherwise have
expected from Safari's "no third-party cookies" default (keeping
in mind that few Safari users would likely have had any inkling
that there was already an exception to that seemingly declarative
setting, via the 35824 fix). The Google ad network cookies in
question should not have been placed through the Safari browsers
of users with that "third-party cookie blocking" setting. Those
cookies were in error, and Google is in the process of removing
them. But those cookies did not contain personal information,
nobody was harmed, nothing was damaged, and there is no
indication that this event was purposeful subterfuge of any kind
by Google."
- - -
In other words, yeah, this ruling is simple bull.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein ([email protected]): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://google.com/+LaurenWeinstein
Twitter: http://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
_______________________________________________
pfir mailing list
http://lists.pfir.org/mailman/listinfo/pfir
