4 ms·

Google in $5bn lawsuit for tracking in 'private' mode

51 points by nreece 6y ago

panpanna 6y ago
Question: does chrome privat mode automatically set the do-not-track flag? If so, what are the legal implications if a site sees that and decides to track you anyway?
- tylerhou 6y ago
  There are no legal implications of not respecting do not track. I don't know definitively, but a search tells me many major companies (including Google) don't respect Do Not Track. In fact, Do Not Track can in itself be an extra datapoint websites can use to track you, so it's best to leave it off.
  - panpanna 6y ago
    Yeah, but one might argue that do-not-track is a clear revocation of consent wrt GDPR and CCPA.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  There are none; the do-not-track flag was a proposal and standard that is lacking any legal requirements to respect. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track The closest thing to legal is the European GDPR legislation, making it mandatory for websites to have consumers opt-in.
- garmaine 6y ago
  The "do-not-track flag" is the legal equivalent of asking "pretty-pretty please."
- amelius 6y ago
  Same legal status as robots.txt, I suppose based on common sense.
sneak 6y ago
I believe that if a smaller company broke criminal wiretapping laws, the individual people involved with the criminal activity would be going to prison. Why is Google, which cannot break the law, only being sued in a civil action? Individual human people at Google broke criminal wiretapping laws. (I know they’re not mutually exclusive, but I cannot see a future in which the DoJ brings criminal conspiracy charges against Google PMs and SWEs/SREs.) It’s almost as if once you hit a certain size, the penalty for a company’s staff breaking federal laws becomes “the company writes a check for some percentage of your ill-gotten gains” and not criminal prosecution/prison time.
- garmaine 6y ago
  What wiretapping laws?
- shoo 6y ago
  > Here's my (admittedly whimsical) working hypothesis [...] The rot set in back in the 19th century, when the US legal system began recognizing corporations as de facto people. [...] Corporations do not share our priorities. They are hive organisms constructed out of teeming workers who join or leave the collective: those who participate within it subordinate their goals to that of the collective, which pursues the three corporate objectives of growth, profitability, and pain avoidance. [...] Collectively, corporate groups lobby international trade treaty negotiations for operating conditions more conducive to pursuing their three goals [...] We are now living in a global state that has been structured for the benefit of non-human entities with non-human goals. [...] In short, we are living in the aftermath of an alien invasion. -- http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/12/invaders-from-mars.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/12/invaders...
  - sneak 6y ago
    Recognizing corporations as legal persons, as far as I know, has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the people who work at those corporations can or should be prosecuted, personally, when they break criminal law (at work or otherwise). Corporations cannot act, and thus cannot break the law. It is similar to how a military or country cannot kill people: it simply employs murderers.
clarry 6y ago
> The search engine says the collection of search history, even in private viewing mode, helps site owners "better evaluate the performance of their content, products, marketing and more." No shit sherlock, but who exactly uses private browsing mode to help site owners to their private data?
dang 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23397045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23397045

51 points by nreece 6y ago

Question: does chrome privat mode automatically set the do-not-track flag? If so, what are the legal implications if a site sees that and decides to track you anyway?

tylerhou 6y ago
There are no legal implications of not respecting do not track. I don't know definitively, but a search tells me many major companies (including Google) don't respect Do Not Track. In fact, Do Not Track can in itself be an extra datapoint websites can use to track you, so it's best to leave it off.
- panpanna 6y ago
  Yeah, but one might argue that do-not-track is a clear revocation of consent wrt GDPR and CCPA.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
There are none; the do-not-track flag was a proposal and standard that is lacking any legal requirements to respect. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track The closest thing to legal is the European GDPR legislation, making it mandatory for websites to have consumers opt-in.
garmaine 6y ago
The "do-not-track flag" is the legal equivalent of asking "pretty-pretty please."
amelius 6y ago
Same legal status as robots.txt, I suppose based on common sense.

sneak 6y ago

I believe that if a smaller company broke criminal wiretapping laws, the individual people involved with the criminal activity would be going to prison. Why is Google, which cannot break the law, only being sued in a civil action? Individual human people at Google broke criminal wiretapping laws. (I know they’re not mutually exclusive, but I cannot see a future in which the DoJ brings criminal conspiracy charges against Google PMs and SWEs/SREs.) It’s almost as if once you hit a certain size, the penalty for a company’s staff breaking federal laws becomes “the company writes a check for some percentage of your ill-gotten gains” and not criminal prosecution/prison time.

garmaine 6y ago
What wiretapping laws?
shoo 6y ago
> Here's my (admittedly whimsical) working hypothesis [...] The rot set in back in the 19th century, when the US legal system began recognizing corporations as de facto people. [...] Corporations do not share our priorities. They are hive organisms constructed out of teeming workers who join or leave the collective: those who participate within it subordinate their goals to that of the collective, which pursues the three corporate objectives of growth, profitability, and pain avoidance. [...] Collectively, corporate groups lobby international trade treaty negotiations for operating conditions more conducive to pursuing their three goals [...] We are now living in a global state that has been structured for the benefit of non-human entities with non-human goals. [...] In short, we are living in the aftermath of an alien invasion. -- http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/12/invaders-from-mars.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/12/invaders...
- sneak 6y ago
  Recognizing corporations as legal persons, as far as I know, has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the people who work at those corporations can or should be prosecuted, personally, when they break criminal law (at work or otherwise). Corporations cannot act, and thus cannot break the law. It is similar to how a military or country cannot kill people: it simply employs murderers.

clarry 6y ago

> The search engine says the collection of search history, even in private viewing mode, helps site owners "better evaluate the performance of their content, products, marketing and more." No shit sherlock, but who exactly uses private browsing mode to help site owners to their private data?

dang 6y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23397045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23397045