A US judge has accepted Google's offer of just $22.5m to settle with the FTC over Safari cookies, despite pressure from a consumer rights group to stiffen the penalty. District Judge Susan Illston decided that the agreement was "substantively fair, adequate and reasonable", rejecting Consumer Watchdog's objections that the …
So if you harm the privacy of 10 people, you pay for each violation, but if you harm many more (which does nothing to reduce the impact it has on each separate individual) you don't just get a volume discount - you get a fine that amounts to a compliment instead of a punishment to ensure you pay attention next time.
No wonder the nation is in such a state. That's like begging on your knees to ignore any semblance of compliance with the law. Sjeez..
Re: Fantastic argument..
No, its that we have a weird legal system that allows one to plead guilty but not admit one's guilt.
Had Google admitted their guilt, then they could have been fined 3 Billion USD or something like that amount.
(Most likely less but much more than 21 Million USD)
Google and Microsoft know how to beat the legal system, and until the courts rule Google to be a monopoly... they will get away with murder, so to speak.
OK, maybe there are some sound legal reasons why such a low fine is appropriate, but having a fix in Feb 2014 is taking the piss surely? Unless it's misquoted and should be Feb 2013 (and even in that case, 3 months + to change the way your cookies work??)
Re: February 2014??
They said they would have the cookies disabled on users' machines by then. I'm thinking that the cookies will naturally expire at the beginning of 2014 or something like that, and they'll delete them when they see them between now and then.
Just a guess, but possible.
Re: February 2014??
This is as ridiculous as Apple saying they couldn't post the UK website apology in less than two weeks, but of course The Register remains uncritical of Google Twaddle.
Presumably the judge's back-hander was "substantively fair, adequate and reasonable".
Tell the Guardian then!
This is one of their favourite Google stories.
Their angle almost seems that the Intel and Windows tax are what we all need.
"No Legal Reason"?
"[The judge] added that there was no legal reason to reject the settlement because of Google's refusal to admit its guilt."
Oddly, I myself can not think of a better reason to reject it...
Tip of the iceberg
Google.... I attempted to install an Adobe Flash Reader update. It tried to install Flash, Google Chrome, and Google Toolbar. I killed the task and purged my temp directory.
Google... you suck.
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Why can’t I walk past Maplin without buying stuff I don’t need?
- Review 'Mommy got me an UltraVibe Pleasure 2000 for Xmas!' South Park: Stick of Truth
- The land of Milk and Sammy: Free music app touted by Samsung
- Privacy warriors lob sueball at Facebook buyout of WhatsApp