5 ms·

Safari users win right to sue Google over privacy

55 points by luxpir 12y ago

Navarr 12y ago
While this is obviously great for privacy proponents - I still can't understand how, legally, Google must acknowledge and adhere to browser settings. Does this set precedent for that?
- talmand 12y ago
  I suppose one way to approach that is to say that the fact they are placing a file or some data on your computer without permission through a workaround to bypass your chosen security settings really is breaching the security of your computer. Which I'm sure is illegal in most jurisdictions of the world.
- gress 12y ago
  They knowingly bypassed a security policy set by the user. That's classed as computer misuse in many jurisdictions.
  - gress 12y ago
    Seriously - how is this downvoted by anyone other than a zealot? I am merely explaining how it could be considered a legal issue in some places. Not passing judgement on whether it should be.
    - luxpir 12y ago
      Agreed with your point. Don't understand the downvotes either, but I think the general consensus at HN is to not complain about downvotes. Might be wrong, but it won't help your case if so. Still, your point stands.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  To not adhere to the user's wishes (in this case, through browser settings) is malicious behavior.
  - Navarr 12y ago
    So then if I write code that works around an ad-blocker, am I being malicious? I'm not sure those two are actually equivalent, but it feels like it in this case - in which case this would be pretty bad precedent.
emehrkay 12y ago
This seems to be from the mobile iframe workaround that Google implemented. Apple decided that Safari should not allow an iframe with different source urls to drop cookies unless the user interacts with the iframe (clicks something in it). Google's iframed ads automatically clicked something in order to drop a Google cookie. I feel that Google didn't get enough shit for this. They kinda get a pass for their shitty behavior.
- SmellyGeekBoy 12y ago
  Thanks for the explanation, I was genuinely struggling to understand what it is they actually did based on the story... I know it's intended for a mainstream audience but at least some technical info would've been useful!
eevilspock 12y ago
evil is as evil does.

55 points by luxpir 12y ago

While this is obviously great for privacy proponents - I still can't understand how, legally, Google must acknowledge and adhere to browser settings. Does this set precedent for that?

talmand 12y ago
I suppose one way to approach that is to say that the fact they are placing a file or some data on your computer without permission through a workaround to bypass your chosen security settings really is breaching the security of your computer. Which I'm sure is illegal in most jurisdictions of the world.
gress 12y ago
They knowingly bypassed a security policy set by the user. That's classed as computer misuse in many jurisdictions.
- gress 12y ago
  Seriously - how is this downvoted by anyone other than a zealot? I am merely explaining how it could be considered a legal issue in some places. Not passing judgement on whether it should be.
  - luxpir 12y ago
    Agreed with your point. Don't understand the downvotes either, but I think the general consensus at HN is to not complain about downvotes. Might be wrong, but it won't help your case if so. Still, your point stands.
toomuchtodo 12y ago
To not adhere to the user's wishes (in this case, through browser settings) is malicious behavior.
- Navarr 12y ago
  So then if I write code that works around an ad-blocker, am I being malicious? I'm not sure those two are actually equivalent, but it feels like it in this case - in which case this would be pretty bad precedent.

emehrkay 12y ago

This seems to be from the mobile iframe workaround that Google implemented. Apple decided that Safari should not allow an iframe with different source urls to drop cookies unless the user interacts with the iframe (clicks something in it). Google's iframed ads automatically clicked something in order to drop a Google cookie. I feel that Google didn't get enough shit for this. They kinda get a pass for their shitty behavior.

SmellyGeekBoy 12y ago
Thanks for the explanation, I was genuinely struggling to understand what it is they actually did based on the story... I know it's intended for a mainstream audience but at least some technical info would've been useful!

eevilspock 12y ago

evil is as evil does.