3 ms·
According to the California OAG press release: $93 million, plus injunctions which seem to be more about disclosures to users and internal oversight than actual
by jkaplowitz 3y ago
According to the California OAG press release: $93 million, plus injunctions which seem to be more about disclosures to users and internal oversight than actually allowing users to opt out of (or requiring opt-in consent before) tracking location. Not the most user-respecting outcome to say the least, though it could certainly have been worse.
Disclosure: I worked for Google more than 8 years ago, but not in any role related to this news story. I have no relevant inside information and I am certainly not speaking for Google here.
- gdprrrr 3y agoSo, That's around 0,3% of the 280bn quotes in the PDF. The equivalent for Person with an income of 100k would be $3. Yes, you reading that right.
- ocimbote 3y ago100000 * 0.3/100 = 100000 * 3/1000 = 100 * 3 = 300 0.3% of 100k is 300. Unless you meant "an income of 100k cents" but that would be quite unusual.
- zoky 3y agoNo, they made an order of magnitude mistake. Fairly common, it happens. However, in this case it has taken it from “ordering bacon and avocado on my burger” to “two tickets to my local sports team including beers and chili cheese fries”. So not enough to be exactly punitive, more like a mild inconvenience. The point still stands.
- robertlagrant 3y agoPayment could be in the form of a Chromebook!
- tetris11 3y ago(100*1e3) * (93*1e6) / (280*1e9) > 33.21 That's about 4 lunches.
- subroutine 3y ago$33 dollars is the correct amount lol. It's coffee time fellas.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gorjusborg 3y agoSlightly more if we include the future 'campaign contributions' that may have been implied.
- 2Gkashmiri 3y agohey. been meaning to ask someone at google. i read long time ago how many apps are NOT using play services for location, like OSMAND~ and some other apps but what does the user loose if the navigation app doesnt use play location services? i was talking to a cab aggregator last time and i said "oh i dont use your app because using it makes me enable google location which enables location sharing and i am not keen in doing that and i hear, beyond its privacy implications, you can avoid it"..... he was like "uh..... so why shouldn't we use it?
- jkaplowitz 3y agoAs I said, I last worked at Google more than 8 years ago, and I didn’t have a role relevant to this news story. Therefore I don’t have any more insight to add in response to your question than the general public, with one exception: I’ll note that Google is generally at least more technically able to honor the privacy promises it makes than a lot of small startups, such as robustly deleting data it claims to delete and giving you a lot of controls to request deletion of various categories of data. Many startups do just enough lip service toward these compliance obligations to avoid negative financial, regulatory, or reputation consequences but don’t actually uphold their end of whatever they’re supposed to do (especially in places like the EU where strong privacy laws exist). Google goes well beyond that. Clearly Google is far from perfect in privacy matters. I wish Google made stronger privacy promises and didn’t do dark patterns or deceptive explanations like what this settlement is punishing. But it’s easy to forget how much of the industry is worse than Google in these regards and how little of it is better, just because Google is so big and so prominent.
- vgttvyggm 3y ago[flagged]
- gerash 3y agowho receives this $93 million ?
- zie 3y agoThe state of CA. CA's elected representatives will spend it on whatever suits their fancy.