bit-tech.net

Google hit by privacy suit from UK Safari users

Google hit by privacy suit from UK Safari users

Google's tracking of Safari users, despite the presence of a 'Do Not Track' flag forbidding such, continues to land the advertising giant in hot legal water.

Google has found itself in the crosshairs of a privacy lawsuit once again, as users of Apple's Safari web browser and its spin-offs sue the advertising giant's UK arm.

The proceedings against the company, coordinated by law firm Olswang, seek redress for Google's apparent deliberate attempt to track users of the Safari browser despite the use of a 'Do Not Track' flag within the software. While Google denied any such activity, it would later transpire that it had been - deliberately or accidentally - ignoring the flag and tracking Safari users across the web for the purpose of delivering targeted advertising, the company's majority source of income.

The tracking cookies were stored on all systems using the Safari browser regardless of privacy settings, affecting all users of Safari on Windows, OS X - where it is the default web browser - and also on Apple's iPad, iPod Touch and iPhone mobile devices. Google's actions would continue throughout 2011 and 2012, with the company's DoubleClick advertising subsidiary being directly responsible for setting the cookies in contravention of the browser's privacy settings.

Despite the issue being brought to Google's attention on numerous occasions, the company would continue to claim no wrongdoing - until a researcher published details of the tracking in the US and brought it to the attention of the Federal Trade Commission, which would fine Google a whopping $22.5 million for its actions in misrepresenting to users that it would not place tracking cookies on the computers of or serve targeted advertising to Safari users.

Now, argues Olswang on behalf of its clients, it's time for UK consumers to have a piece of the Google pie, with the law firm targeting the company for monetary damages as well as a full disclosure and public apology.

'Google has a responsibility to consumers and should be accountable for the trust placed in them,' Olswang partner Dan Tench claimed in a statement regarding the case. 'We hope that they will take this opportunity to give Safari users a proper explanation about what happened, to apologise and, where appropriate, compensate the victims of their intrusion.'

Olswang already has several clients lined up for the case, which is being coordinated under the flag of newly-formed campaigning group Safari Users Against Google's Secret Tracking. The first of these to issue proceedings against the company is Judith Vidal-Hall, a 74 year old who feels Google is failing to deliver on its 'Do No Evil' slogan. 'Google claims it does not collect personal data, but doesn't say who decides what information is "personal,"' Vidal-Hall explained. 'Whether something is private or not should be up to the internet surfer, not Google. We are best placed to decide, not them.'

Google has yet to respond to the case, which has spread to Facebook as the campaign group seeks to drum up publicity for its cause. It's slow going, however: of the millions of Safari users in the UK, fewer than 10 are thought to have contacted Olswang and the pro-action Facebook page - admittedly only launched yesterday - has gathered just 140 'Likes' at the time of writing.

47 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Mankz 28th January 2013, 12:06 Quote
Tin foil hat time.
XXAOSICXX 28th January 2013, 12:11 Quote
What total nonsense.
rollo 28th January 2013, 12:22 Quote
Google have been doing this for a while on different browsers. And on phones, they were under investigation by the FCC for breach of most of the above.

The 2 biggest players in the mobile phone sector have repeadly said they would block googles access to the web browsers if they did not clean up there act on the above.

Google is loosing its we are not evil image and stuff like the above is doing alot of damage.
Mankz 28th January 2013, 12:43 Quote
I think 10 people is statistically insignificant to be entirely honest..

If it was thousands, then they'd have a case which I'd more than likely support.
Griffter 28th January 2013, 12:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
What total nonsense.

why nonsense? if u dont want spam, then a company must not write code to supersede ur rights and wants.

u could even boil it down to google being just another trojan horse piece of program to open u up to spam.. u hate hackers that try to insert trojans.. why is google any different now?
rollo 28th January 2013, 13:03 Quote
because most andriod fans see google as the saint of the world and apple the evil of the world.

you can guarentee if it was apple accused of the above there would be an outcry.

as i mensioned above though, Samsung already told google to not do this on there product range. ( And samsung is andriods biggest supporter towards its main goal of advertising.)

Google really is just a big advertisement company they have built a wall around there ads which is called Andriod and are giving it away for free to get more advertisement.

Microsoft did a similar thing with windows back in the day.

Main differences are people can choose to block google you had little to no choice in operatiing system.

If the 2 main phone sellers decide to block google ( which they have said they would do if they found voilations themselves that google may of placed) then they would be removed from a 400million unit sales market and virtually all the people buying those 2 products actually go online.

Google will really have to be careful to not push Samsung away as i dont think samsung needs google as much as people think anymore.
Snips 28th January 2013, 13:15 Quote
"Google is loosing its we are not evil image and stuff like the above is doing alot of damage."

They've always been evil in my eyes. The whole company is the biggest Malware on the planet.

"Yeah but it's free!" is no longer a defence.
deathtaker27 28th January 2013, 13:21 Quote
I thought do not track was optional?
Mankz 28th January 2013, 13:51 Quote
I think the lawsuit is because they selected 'do not track', and were tracked.
Griffter 28th January 2013, 13:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by deathtaker27
I thought do not track was optional?

lol

next time u search check to see what comes up also, i myself work for a gambling company, and search alot for online gambling stuff at work from my logged in gmail google account. get home, my searches forever try to finish my searches for gambloing **** and gambling popups which never came at the rate it does now.

if they saving ur search prefs, then u been hacked already for spam and ads.
Woodspoon 28th January 2013, 14:05 Quote
"Safari Users Against Google's Secret Tracking" sounds to me more like somebody's got a personal axe to grind and their just trying to get as many other people to jump on the bandwagon as possible.
ShinyAli 28th January 2013, 14:06 Quote
Seems strange that google would "accidentally" target just safari with all those chrome users in their pocket?
Top five browsers last year.

Google Chrome (39.3 %)
Mozilla Firefox (35.2 %)
Internet Explorer (18.1%)
Safari (4.3 %)
Opera (2.2 %)
Mankz 28th January 2013, 14:31 Quote
My bet is that it came from an iOS device where its hard to get another browser on the system.
jrs77 28th January 2013, 15:04 Quote
Firefox has the "no track" option in the settings aswell, but it doesn't help here either.

As far as I know, no browser prevents google from tracking you and you don't even need to be logged in to gmail or ytube constantly.

Face it. Google is just as evil of a company as every other. They'll do everything possible to increase their profits, and tracking everyone is part of it.
rollo 28th January 2013, 15:12 Quote
You can easily install chrome or Mozilla both have iOS versions.
schmidtbag 28th January 2013, 15:21 Quote
I'm getting really tired of this crap - not Google doing their tacking thing but people complaining about it. First of all, nobody is forcing you to use google. If you don't want an "evil" monopolizing company, then it's your own damn fault for using them all the time.

Secondly, WHY DOES IT MATTER? As long as you're not looking up anything illegal, who cares if google has info on your searches? What do you expect to happen, their janitor sneaks into the server room and says "teehee, this guy is looking at porn!"? Google's employees are probably not legally allowed to view ANYTHING related to your account that isn't already public.

And lastly, why is it that every corporation worth more than $1 billion is automatically evil because they want to make money? What makes them qualify as not evil? Google isn't actively trying to snuff out the competition (such as yahoo or apple). Haven't you heard of them trying to combine patents with other companies? While they may be beating their competition, I'd say that's because of things like offering more desireable products and freedom of choice. How is that evil? It's not like Microsoft, who got their success by trying to eliminate anyone who had a better alternative. MS didn't get their success by making more desireable products, they fought dirty. Apple seems to have learned from their mistakes and no longer has a weakness to MS and now to me it seems like they're taking their revenge.
Gareth Halfacree 28th January 2013, 15:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
I'm getting really tired of this crap - not Google doing their tacking thing but people complaining about it. First of all, nobody is forcing you to use google. If you don't want an "evil" monopolizing company, then it's your own damn fault for using them all the time.
You may want to re-read the article: it was DoubleClick, an advertising company wholly owned by Google, that was doing the tracking. DoubleClick is used on a massive number of websites, none of which have any relationship with Google beyond using DoubleClick to generate advertising revenue. In fact, if you'd care to take a look at the page source on this very site, you'll see numerous DoubleClick domains - it's one of the advertising companies used by Dennis Publishing across their various websites.

So, nobody is forcing anybody to use Google, true - but if you don't want to use DoubleClick, or any of Google's other advertising subsidiaries, you're going to find your little corner of the web is a dark and lonely place.
Griffter 28th January 2013, 15:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
I'm getting really tired of this crap - not Google doing their tacking thing but people complaining about it. First of all, nobody is forcing you to use google. If you don't want an "evil" monopolizing company, then it's your own damn fault for using them all the time.
You may want to re-read the article: it was DoubleClick, an advertising company wholly owned by Google, that was doing the tracking. DoubleClick is used on a massive number of websites, none of which have any relationship with Google beyond using DoubleClick to generate advertising revenue. In fact, if you'd care to take a look at the page source on this very site, you'll see numerous DoubleClick domains - it's one of the advertising companies used by Dennis Publishing across their various websites.

So, nobody is forcing anybody to use Google, true - but if you don't want to use DoubleClick, or any of Google's other advertising subsidiaries, you're going to find your little corner of the web is a dark and lonely place.

hear hear Gareth!

also, i have a buddy also with the "so what if google tracks u". thats like watching the Death Star getting destroyed and saying: "oh what about the poor ppl inside it"... you missing the point then.
schmidtbag 28th January 2013, 16:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffter
hear hear Gareth!

also, i have a buddy also with the "so what if google tracks u". thats like watching the Death Star getting destroyed and saying: "oh what about the poor ppl inside it"... you missing the point then.

@Gareth
Ah I see what you mean now. That is a bit annoying but I thought stuff like DoubleClick only worked when you clicked on Ads or typed in searches. Feel free to correct me.

@Griffter
When you look at it in the perspective you said, then ya it seems completely stupid. Especially consiering that half the people inside are clones. Personally I don't see the relevance of your analogy. What I'm saying is "be a decent person and you shouldn't be afraid of what people know about you (assuming they have access to that information)". What you're saying is more like "do something beneficial to everyone even if it means some innocent people may be at a loss".
Griffter 28th January 2013, 16:23 Quote
i dont really mean that, i mean, just becos im an "honest web user", for lack of a better term, does not mean that anyone can step over my privacy. i dont have anything to hide, but it is my choice to divulge any info about myself to anyone. and google is using my info to SELL to others i dont want to be apart of. ergo, the point is not to be honest or not, but to try and maintain my freedom and privacy as i see fit for myself.

damn.. this **** just got deep. :-)
Gareth Halfacree 28th January 2013, 16:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
@Gareth
Ah I see what you mean now. That is a bit annoying but I thought stuff like DoubleClick only worked when you clicked on Ads or typed in searches. Feel free to correct me.
If only: DoubleClick sets a cookie on your browser regardless of whether you clicked on the advert or not; just having it displayed is enough. When you then move from Bit-Tech to another site which also uses DoubleClick for advertising, that cookie tells DoubleClick "hey, this dude was just on Bit-Tech." When you move to yet a third site, the cookie tells DoubleClick "this guy was on Bit-Tech, A.N. Other Site, and now he's here." DoubleClick can then use that information to tailor the advertising in an effort to get you to click on the adverts. This is targeted advertising, which is one aspect of behavioural advertising.

Setting the Do Not Track flag in your browser is supposed to stop that happening. It doesn't prevent cookies from being set altogether - I mean, you can do that, if you want, but it'll break a big chunk of the web and you can forget about using webmail or buying anything online - but it does prevent sites that you haven't actively interacted with from setting such tracking cookies and monitoring your path across the web. At least, it's supposed to - but companies like Google aren't playing fair, which is hardly surprising considering that its massive database of viewer behaviour is what has made Google one of the biggest advertising companies in the world.

That's the issue at the heart of the lawsuit, and the FTC's fine: people said "don't track me, bro," Google said "OK, dude, we're not tracking you any more, chill," but it turned out they were being tracked. That's not cool.
schmidtbag 28th January 2013, 16:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffter
i dont really mean that, i mean, just becos im an "honest web user", for lack of a better term, does not mean that anyone can step over my privacy. i dont have anything to hide, but it is my choice to divulge any info about myself to anyone. and google is using my info to SELL to others i dont want to be apart of. ergo, the point is not to be honest or not, but to try and maintain my freedom and privacy as i see fit for myself.

damn.. this **** just got deep. :-)

I agree, I don't think just anyONE should be able to step over anybody's privacy. But like I said, I doubt Google has legal rights to have individual employees single you out and spy on your activity. I think the whole problem with this tracking thing is the portrayal of it. People automatically assume ANY form of tracking to be a breach of personal security, even if it's just a machine looking at it for YOUR benefit. Assuming google's employees aren't giggling over the things you search, I really don't see the problem. If a website has ads that are unavoidable, the whole point of this tracking feature was to give advertisements relevant to you. I would much rather go to a website and see ads related to computers than a stupid show on MTV, if that means Google keeps track of my searches.

I think if Google encrypts your search info then most people ought to complain a lot less. Remember back in the day when everyone was paranoid about their number being stolen online? I wouldn't say this situation is a whole lot different.
ShinyAli 28th January 2013, 16:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffter
i dont really mean that, i mean, just becos im an "honest web user", for lack of a better term, does not mean that anyone can step over my privacy. i dont have anything to hide, but it is my choice to divulge any info about myself to anyone. and google is using my info to SELL to others i dont want to be apart of. ergo, the point is not to be honest or not, but to try and maintain my freedom and privacy as i see fit for myself.

damn.. this **** just got deep. :-)

Exactly, and with some medical records online and more going online, credit records online and many people using cloud storage for personal data who knows just what info google/doubleclick and their like can accumulate about people, it's the same old story when they say the data is of no interest or value to them, then why do they openly or covertly try to harvest it, were all stupid right :(
PCBuilderSven 28th January 2013, 17:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
if you don't want to use DoubleClick, or any of Google's other advertising subsidiaries, you're going to find your little corner of the web is a dark and lonely place.

Or, you could just install an ad-blocker, and if you want extra anti-tracking you can use Adblock plus' tracking protection filter.
rollo 28th January 2013, 17:15 Quote
If you want to advertise on the web its extremely difficult to not use a google own subsidery as they have brought out or own basically 90% of them.

Adblocker is great if you want to block adds.

Think what Gareth is trying to say is if you want to advertise its difficult with no google.

Google has so much invested in advertisement ( basically the entire company) that if everyone was blocking them they would struggle. Add revenue went mobile hence the creation of andriod. Get paid more for mobile clicks than you do desktop now.

Can't say I've personally clicked on an add I use addblocker on pc.
mdshann 28th January 2013, 19:03 Quote
so who gets all the money from the lawsuit?
velo 28th January 2013, 20:46 Quote
Quote:
a whopping $22.5 million [fine]

Not sure about the fine itself, 2 years of data on a fairly small subset of Safari users (who are themselves a small subset of internet users) can't be worth that much to Google - so deliberately tracking them looks stupid, particularly given the rep damage, and yet I still can't believe they could pick that up for so long without someone realising!

Personally not that fussed about being tracked online, so I wouldn't set the 'Do Not Track' flag - but I'd be pretty furious if this'd happened to me. I won't be losing sleep though, and I doubt Google will either.
ch424 28th January 2013, 20:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffter
and google is using my info to SELL to others i dont want to be apart of.

Google doesn't sell your information. Advertisers contact google saying "show this advert to these kinds of people" then google do it. Nobody ever sees your info anyway, it just gets aggregated into statistics that the ad server uses to choose what you're most likely interested in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
I doubt Google has legal rights to have individual employees single you out and spy on your activity. I think the whole problem with this tracking thing is the portrayal of it. People automatically assume ANY form of tracking to be a breach of personal security, even if it's just a machine looking at it for YOUR benefit.

This.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Article
One consequence of this design is that Google’s opt-out cookie mechanism doesn’t work for Safari users–Google’s attempt to deliver the opt-out cookie will fail because none of the three conditions hold.

The FTC alleged that Google told Safari users that they didn’t need to worry about the unavailability of opt-out, because Safari’s cookie controls would provide the same protection as the opt-out.

If you read the rest of the article it sounds like a lack of communication between different teams at google/doubleclick. The doubleclick people that implemented the workaround could easily have no idea that the google OPT_OUT cookie wasn't working. I'm sure google just settled because $22m is nothing to them and it saves a tedious court case.
Roskoken 28th January 2013, 21:03 Quote
Surprised those ****ing **** faced arse bandit **** face assholes at Apple didnt ask for 9999999 trillion dollars. Bunch of ****s, **** Apple.
Sloth 28th January 2013, 21:24 Quote
Not hugely surprising. There's no real incentive to make sure they aren't tracking those who opt out until it comes back to bite them like this.

It's always wise to be wary around someone trying to profit off you. Google's no different in this case, no matter how nice their motto is meant to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roskoken
Surprised those ****ing **** faced arse bandit **** face assholes at Apple didnt ask for 9999999 trillion dollars. Bunch of ****s, **** Apple.
Did you read the article? Or even just the title? "Google hit by privacy suit from UK Safari users".
Roskoken 29th January 2013, 02:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Not hugely surprising. There's no real incentive to make sure they aren't tracking those who opt out until it comes back to bite them like this.

It's always wise to be wary around someone trying to profit off you. Google's no different in this case, no matter how nice their motto is meant to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roskoken
Surprised those ****ing **** faced arse bandit **** face assholes at Apple didnt ask for 9999999 trillion dollars. Bunch of ****s, **** Apple.
Did you read the article? Or even just the title? "Google hit by privacy suit from UK Safari users".

Yup, and I think I made my feelings abundantly clear about the issue.
Griffter 29th January 2013, 08:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ch424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffter
and google is using my info to SELL to others i dont want to be apart of.

Google doesn't sell your information. Advertisers contact google saying "show this advert to these kinds of people" then google do it. Nobody ever sees your info anyway, it just gets aggregated into statistics that the ad server uses to choose what you're most likely interested in.

so how is that not selling my info that they have to others? they pay google for google to use my info they have to help them advertise. as well as showing me products i dont want to be apart of. my unwillingness to be apart of this still stands. i dont care who has my info, secret or not. its my info and thats where it should stay till i decide to tell anyone where i went or what i did.
liratheal 29th January 2013, 10:23 Quote
I'm not sorry about this opinion, and I know it'll be viewed as harsh or absurd, but.

People who bring lawsuits like this for their personal gain over something that has not affected them in the slightest, should just be banned from getting involved in legal spats, and banned from using current technology.

If they've done anything at all it's prove that they can't handle the responsibility of using technology, and demonstrate that they even begin to smell money and they'll lie through their teeth for it.

Grifter, if you're that paranoid about your "info" then stop using the ****ing web. It's that simple.
forum_user 29th January 2013, 13:32 Quote
Ok, seems probable that Google has messed up in this case. But surely, in general, it should our browsers that protect us by refusing permission for crap to be placed on our systems that we do not want, or any form of tracking, or focused advertising.

I do not want any of it. I don't want advertising to be focused for me. I do not want to be tracked. I do not want a trail of data stored about me.

So, which browser protects me guys? I'm really struggling to settle on a browser that protects me as I want to be protected.

I support the people laying claims. Not in court. But if it helps to get a MASSIVE corporation to wake up and play ball as it should be, I say go for it, take them for hundreds of millions of whatever currency. I want my friggin privacy back.
Griffter 29th January 2013, 13:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
I'm not sorry about this opinion, and I know it'll be viewed as harsh or absurd, but.

People who bring lawsuits like this for their personal gain over something that has not affected them in the slightest, should just be banned from getting involved in legal spats, and banned from using current technology.

If they've done anything at all it's prove that they can't handle the responsibility of using technology, and demonstrate that they even begin to smell money and they'll lie through their teeth for it.

Grifter, if you're that paranoid about your "info" then stop using the ****ing web. It's that simple.

ok troll
liratheal 29th January 2013, 16:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Ok, seems probable that Google has messed up in this case. But surely, in general, it should our browsers that protect us by refusing permission for crap to be placed on our systems that we do not want, or any form of tracking, or focused advertising.

I do not want any of it. I don't want advertising to be focused for me. I do not want to be tracked. I do not want a trail of data stored about me.

So, which browser protects me guys? I'm really struggling to settle on a browser that protects me as I want to be protected.

I support the people laying claims. Not in court. But if it helps to get a MASSIVE corporation to wake up and play ball as it should be, I say go for it, take them for hundreds of millions of whatever currency. I want my friggin privacy back.

Do you not find it mildly amusing that you're whinging about internet privacy, and yet, you've got an account here - Which means an email account, which suggests that you're using other online services, which equally suggests that you're creating your own data trail?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffter
ok troll

...You, as above, have accounts here, probably elsewhere too, and are whinging about internet privacy, but somehow I'm the troll? Seriously?

If you want internet privacy, try the following: Clear your accounts off forums, facebook, et al (Not forgetting that pesky email) set your browser to clear the cache, history, and personal data on close, install an adblocker of your choice, something akin to noscript, and run through a proxy. Perhaps, if you want to go to extremes, have a VM that you run all that through and then restore to a snapshot of the base install & appropriate addons so you can truly toast anything tracking your activity.

If you're doing none, or only part of the above, then you have no right whatsoever to moan about a tracking cookie.
ch424 29th January 2013, 19:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffter
so how is that not selling my info that they have to others?

Because you said you were worried about the privacy of it. Your private information is never seen by anyone or sold to anyone. That's why it's not "selling your info". They are profiting from your information, yes, but not selling it to anyone.
XXAOSICXX 30th January 2013, 10:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal

If you're doing none, or only part of the above, then you have no right whatsoever to moan about a tracking cookie.

Bingo.

Which is why this is a nonsense. It wasn't all that long ago that browsers didn't HAVE an option to not allow tracking, and we were all fine with it then.

Let's be honest, as liratheal quite correctly points out, everything you do on the internet - every account you hold, everything you buy - you're leaving a trail behind which somebody can use to piece together enough information about you to potentially do harm. A nevermind whining about a f**king tracking cookie when your ISP keeps records of your internet activity for the damn government to look at whenever they choose!

And on a lighter note...I enjoy many Google services. Google Maps, Gmail, Google Drive and so on. These were built on the back of advertising revenue. I hardly think it's the end of the world for Google to know which sites I visit in order to show ads to me that are more relevant to me (which I *CAN* block with an adblocker anyway).

And besides...

Safari users deserve everything they get ;)
forum_user 30th January 2013, 14:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
Bingo.

Which is why this is a nonsense. It wasn't all that long ago that browsers didn't HAVE an option to not allow tracking, and we were all fine with it then.

No we weren't all fine with it then.
XXAOSICXX 30th January 2013, 18:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
Bingo.

Which is why this is a nonsense. It wasn't all that long ago that browsers didn't HAVE an option to not allow tracking, and we were all fine with it then.

No we weren't all fine with it then.

There's always one...
Sloth 30th January 2013, 20:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roskoken
Yup, and I think I made my feelings abundantly clear about the issue.
Ah. I took your post as thinking Apple were filing the suit and wondering why they didn't ask for more. Now I see you were surprised they weren't filing in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
There's always one...
Make that two.

Clearly not everyone was fine with it if browser developers felt like putting their effort into implementing tracking prevention options. I can't claim to personally been asking for such options but feel the need to pitch and say having done without in the past isn't reason alone to do without in the present and future.
PingCrosby 31st January 2013, 11:05 Quote
What is a Privacy Suit, is it some sort of cloaking device?
Griffter 31st January 2013, 15:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roskoken
Yup, and I think I made my feelings abundantly clear about the issue.
Ah. I took your post as thinking Apple were filing the suit and wondering why they didn't ask for more. Now I see you were surprised they weren't filing in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
There's always one...
Make that two.

Clearly not everyone was fine with it if browser developers felt like putting their effort into implementing tracking prevention options. I can't claim to personally been asking for such options but feel the need to pitch and say having done without in the past isn't reason alone to do without in the present and future.

+3
Shirty 31st January 2013, 15:52 Quote
-1

I just don't care, it's a no-win situation with the way the web has been built. If you want to use the internet you either opt in, or go nuts as liratheal has described above.

Also, lawsuits should be banned - end of. They are ruining the world far more than a few sodding cookies.
Griffter 31st January 2013, 16:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirty
-1

I just don't care, it's a no-win situation with the way the web has been built. If you want to use the internet you either opt in, or go nuts as liratheal has described above.

Also, lawsuits should be banned - end of. They are ruining the world far more than a few sodding cookies.

lol, u can't -1 from 3 ppl saying they do care lol. its still +3. :D
Shirty 31st January 2013, 16:07 Quote
It was my attempt at forum maths :)
Griffter 31st January 2013, 16:12 Quote
:D all good.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums