An Interest In:
Web News this Week
- March 29, 2024
- March 28, 2024
- March 27, 2024
- March 26, 2024
- March 25, 2024
- March 24, 2024
- March 23, 2024
Some of Our Sources
- Web Designer Wall
- Joshua Blankenship
- Smashing Magazine
- You The Designer
- Creative Curio
- Naldz Graphics
- Fudge Graphics
- Reencoded
- Wal You
- Android Dissected
Help Webnuz
Referal links:
October 11, 2013 07:18 pm GMT
A federal judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit against Google, finding no evidence that the search giant’s Internet tracking harmed users. Plaintiffs alleged that Google had “tricked” Apple’s Safari browser into accepting digital “cookies”, which allow companies to track browsing behavior and sell it for targeted advertising. Avoiding a multi-million dollar fine is nice, but the court’s reasoning gave Google a present that will keep on giving. Judge Sue Robinson declared that even under the most malicious interpretation of Google’s actions, litigants can’t complain about being victims, because ad targeting doesn’t cause actual harm. “While plaintiffs have offered some evidence that the online personal information at issue has some modicum of identifiable value to an individual plaintiff,” declared Judge Robinson [PDF], “plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the ability to monetize their PII has been diminished or lost by virtue of Google’s previous collection of it.” Safari’s browser is configured to block cookie tracking by default. After a Stanford graduate student had discovered Google’s work-around, the FTC launched an investigation that ultimately concluded in a $22 million settlement, but the class action lawsuit went forward because Google didn’t have to admit wrong-doing. Privacy hawks have struggled to indict Internet companies for an impending civil liberties apocalypse, in part because monitoring and selling data doesn’t really interfere with people’s lives. Other than the vague threat of an Orwellian dystopia, as a society we dont really know why surveillance is bad, writes Washington University Law Professor, Neil Richards [PDF]. As a result, advocates have given up on the so-called “harms-based approach.” The FTC itself says [PDF] that the harms-based based approach fails to capture important aspects of privacy, including “the fear of being monitored.” Under current FTC montra, unwanted monitoring itself, then, is cause to bring the full wrath of the federal government. The FTC has made aggressive overtures against apps that advertise to children. When I asked a representative what the problem was, she repeated “We know for a fact that kids received advertising, and noted that “many parents dont like” it. Robinson threw the FTC under the bus with her decision, claiming that monitoring and ad targeting don’t violate the law because it doesn’t stop users from doing anything. Of course, future courts could decide to ignore Robinson’s precedent, which would could endanger Google in their next suit: a caseagainst Gmail’s keyword scanner. Users may not like that Google has access
Original Link: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/3dm3OK7j6Mo/
Judge Gives Google An Early Christmas Present, Declares Privacy Suits Must Prove Harm
A federal judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit against Google, finding no evidence that the search giant’s Internet tracking harmed users. Plaintiffs alleged that Google had “tricked” Apple’s Safari browser into accepting digital “cookies”, which allow companies to track browsing behavior and sell it for targeted advertising. Avoiding a multi-million dollar fine is nice, but the court’s reasoning gave Google a present that will keep on giving. Judge Sue Robinson declared that even under the most malicious interpretation of Google’s actions, litigants can’t complain about being victims, because ad targeting doesn’t cause actual harm. “While plaintiffs have offered some evidence that the online personal information at issue has some modicum of identifiable value to an individual plaintiff,” declared Judge Robinson [PDF], “plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the ability to monetize their PII has been diminished or lost by virtue of Google’s previous collection of it.” Safari’s browser is configured to block cookie tracking by default. After a Stanford graduate student had discovered Google’s work-around, the FTC launched an investigation that ultimately concluded in a $22 million settlement, but the class action lawsuit went forward because Google didn’t have to admit wrong-doing. Privacy hawks have struggled to indict Internet companies for an impending civil liberties apocalypse, in part because monitoring and selling data doesn’t really interfere with people’s lives. Other than the vague threat of an Orwellian dystopia, as a society we dont really know why surveillance is bad, writes Washington University Law Professor, Neil Richards [PDF]. As a result, advocates have given up on the so-called “harms-based approach.” The FTC itself says [PDF] that the harms-based based approach fails to capture important aspects of privacy, including “the fear of being monitored.” Under current FTC montra, unwanted monitoring itself, then, is cause to bring the full wrath of the federal government. The FTC has made aggressive overtures against apps that advertise to children. When I asked a representative what the problem was, she repeated “We know for a fact that kids received advertising, and noted that “many parents dont like” it. Robinson threw the FTC under the bus with her decision, claiming that monitoring and ad targeting don’t violate the law because it doesn’t stop users from doing anything. Of course, future courts could decide to ignore Robinson’s precedent, which would could endanger Google in their next suit: a caseagainst Gmail’s keyword scanner. Users may not like that Google has accessOriginal Link: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/3dm3OK7j6Mo/
Share this article:
Tweet
View Full Article
Techcrunch
TechCrunch is a leading technology blog, dedicated to obsessively profiling startups, reviewing new Internet products, and breaking tech news.More About this Source Visit Techcrunch