3 ms·

From the article: > The complaint is that for several months in 2011 and 2012 Google placed ad-tracking cookies on the devices of Safari users which is set by

• abdullahi1 9y ago
  How were they able to set tracking cookies, if the browser had them disabled?
  • lozenge 9y ago
    With a technical workaround. The thing is, when does improving browser compatibility count as hacking? Most major websites "hacked" IE with a fake P3P header. This is not that different. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8048306/what-is-the-most-broad-p3p-header-that-will-work-with-ie https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8048306/what-is-the-most... http://alexanderhiggins.com/google-fined-22-5m-for-hacking-safari-to-track-you/ http://alexanderhiggins.com/google-fined-22-5m-for-hacking-s...
    • nl 9y ago
      I remember commenting long long ago about how the fake P3P header thing will get people in trouble one day. Not sure that one has happened yet though.
    • taneq 9y ago
      By your definition here a buffer overflow exploit is a "technical workaround". >.>
    • soneil 9y ago
      I see it this way; in the US, if a content publisher chooses to apply DRM, this provides them additional legal protections - whether the DRM is broken or not. Even if stripping DRM is "click Next" simple, it's still illegal. Here, we're applying similar benefit to the consumer. The consumer has expressed they do not wish to be tracked. The application of a loophole does not make it okay. Is it a little over-reaching? Possibly. But it's about time things were over-reaching in the consumer's benefit, rather than the corporations'.
• Too 9y ago
  The way I read this is that so called "supercookies" are illegal? That would be great.