Feeds

back to article Apple users: Only Apple can track us! Not Google

UK Apple fans are suing Google for tracking them online against their will over a five-month period. iThing owners who used the Safari browser between September 2011 and February 2012 allege that Google bypassed the web browser's security settings to plant a temporary cookie that skimmed information from them to personalise ads …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

FAIL

More Leach tripe.

Let's deflect attention with childish sarcastic headlines.

Let's gloss over the fact that Google knowingly wrote code to achieve their end goal by calling it a "cookie slip-up".

No mention of sinister war driving SSID slurping sinister Google tactics then? No, of course not.

Boot. Other foot. Usual standard of journalism.

18
42
Trollface

Re: More Leach tripe.

I wish people would get over the fact that privacy when you're using technology doesn't really exist.

Of course, paranoid people wearing tin hats will always spend time and effort trying to keep what they think is their privacy intact. Personally, I've got better things to do with my life - governments and tech companies can judge what I do with that life as much as they want.

5
20
Silver badge

Re: More Leach tripe.

New variation on "if you've nothing to hide" hmm?

12
0
Bronze badge

Re: More Leach tripe.

@dotslash - There's a world of difference between 'privacy doesn't really exist' and 'actively going out of their way to destroy what little does exist'...

11
0
Silver badge
Meh

It is only

It is only a slip up when you get caught with your pants down...

3
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: More Leach tripe.

And no mention of the flaky Apple browser than allowed it....

6
3
Silver badge

Re: More Leach tripe.

It's great how they're suing for damages, disclosure and an apology. Y'know considering they've already got the last two out of the three.

Also seems a bit of a double standard considering the amount of things apple track themselves.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: It is only

you're bound to slip over if you go around with your pants down....

0
0

Re: More Leach tripe.

Why would you expect a Google Greenshirt to comprehend that difference?

0
0
zb

Re: It is only

Their new motto is don't do anything that is totally evil ... unless it increases the share price.

1
0
Silver badge
Joke

But

. . . but IOS and Safari are safe, they're made by Apple! So it can't be.

I'll have a skinny soymilk frappucino.

30
3
Gimp

Re: But

Sorry but I'll have to see your lawyers before you can have a "skinny soymilk frappucino" as that is a method outlined in Apple's patent iCaff.

As for a lawsuit over this, I wonder what sort of ads Google ended up targetting at these clueless Safari users (pardon my tautology)? I'm willing to bet they were mainly for wildly over-priced brushed aluminium-clad laptops and fruity phones. Oh and trendy coffee bars where the punters cogitate deeply on what kind of cow soymilk comes from...

18
7

Re: But

Or as they say across the pond, "Frap me, y'all."

0
0
JDX
Gold badge

@Ian

The real losers in all this are those who like to generalise people based on the browser they use. Inf act, they're the losers in pretty much any situation.

6
3
Bronze badge
Trollface

Re: @Ian

>The real losers in all this are those who like to generalise people based on the browser they use.

Even IE6 users?

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: But

I wonder what sort of ads Google ended up targetting at these Safari users

Privacy protection software, I'd imagine. And thank you for labelling normal computer users who like some quality as "trendy" - let me know when you've looked up the word usability. I know it's not a common word in the world of Linux and Windows.

2
2
Silver badge

Re: @Ian

Though I'd make the same criticism of the media here - why is it being spun as "Apple users", when Apple is irrelevant to this story (if it affected IE, it wouldn't be "Microsoft users"; if it was something else affecting Chrome, it wouldn't be "Google users").

0
0
Devil

seriously you think Google are the only ones to have tracking cookies... it's just that Safari is such an insecure browser that they are easy to write for!

get a real browser and then you won't have the problems :)

14
12
Anonymous Coward

It's based on Webkit which is also what Chrome is based on.

3
4
Silver badge
Windows

@o5ky

Don't forget that the same kind of thing also happened on MSIE (link to El Reg article), I quote: "“When the IE team heard that Google had bypassed user privacy settings on Safari, we asked ourselves a simple question: is Google circumventing the privacy preferences of Internet Explorer users too?” Dean Hachamovitch, VP of Internet Explorer wrote in a blog post. “We’ve discovered the answer is yes: Google is employing similar methods to get around the default privacy protections in IE and track IE users with cookies.”".

Only Microsoft has also released data which should show this behaviour.

Hmm, Apple and Microsoft against Google, now that's a somewhat odd combination IMO.

5
0
Bronze badge

It's based on Webkit which is also what Chrome is based on.

He said a secure browser.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

"seriously you think Google are the only ones to have tracking cookies... it's just that Safari is such an insecure browser that they are easy to write for!

get a real browser and then you won't have the problems :)"

Does it matter what tech you like? You're all being tracked no matter what you do.

1
1
Silver badge

Re: @o5ky

But if that's the case, it means that Apple is irrelevant to the story. It's rather sloppy reporting for the media to go on about Apple users, when it affects a far larger number of IE users (and possibly others - wonder if it affects Chrome!), and the issue was noticed on IE almost a year ago.

0
0

Ols"wang"

That name sums up the whole thing nicely

0
0
Anonymous Coward

er ... why not sue Safari ?

If a website is able to bypass the instructions given to the browser, surely it's the browsers fault ?

20
4

Re: er ... why not sue Safari ?

Not really. similarly if I was able to bypass restrictions on your computer, it would not be your fault (in the eyes of the law at least)

1
4
Stop

Re: er ... why not sue Safari ?

no, it would be the fault of the OS...

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: er ... why not sue Safari ?

Probably because everyone decided to make voluntary? It is a W3C proposal, y'know those people who look after http standards.

So Apple is following standards and Google is choosing to ignore them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track

Both Google Search and Microsoft's Bing ignore it.

4
3
FAIL

Re: er ... why not sue Safari ?

They circumvented it by writing code that went out of its way to fake what looked like a legitimate response to user action (posting data to a third party domain). They explicitly did this to get around the fact that Safari (unlike any other browser including Chrome and Firefox) defaults to reject third-party cookies.

Similar to the long-running furore over :visited links it's really not just as simple as 'just stop it'. If you stop this kind of thing (by doing deep analysis on exactly what every script is doing for example), you break thousands of websites who are doing this kind of thing perfectly legitimately to do things users actually WANT. At that point everyone says "this browser's rubbish" and simply switches to another less privacy-conscious one.

Google circumvented this deliberately, and justified it internally by saying that if a user hadn't consciously opted out (it was the default) then how were they to know if it was actually the users' preference or not... until they got caught of course, when they promptly admitted it and stopped. For the latest round of this particular argument, look at the response to IE10 defaulting to Do Not Track.

3
1
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Kieran has it 100% right.

The Apple haters blaming Safari or iOS for "insecurity" are showing their ignorance. Google didn't exploit a security hole to do this, they were just acting like a spoiled child whose parents told him he couldn't have a cookie and took one while his parents weren't looking. The "do not track" standard is rather like the "do not call" list. There is nothing in the protocol to enforce it, but one should be able to assume that companies which violate it are up to no good. Google's "oops it was an accident" excuse might possibly have been believable, if they hadn't been caught doing exactly the same thing (but in a slightly different way) to IE.

The fact is, Google is all about standards and freedom, until something comes along to threaten what they make most of their money on: knowing as much as possible about its users to serve it's customers' needs. Note that "customers" to Google isn't us, it is the advertisers who pay them. People can whine about Apple, Microsoft or IBM being soulless profit motivated corporations all they want, but while they're right the "soulless profit motivated" part was redundant to the word "corporation". The problem is, those who think Google is any different are just as delusional as those who think Apple occupies some special slot in the tech world.

5
2
Anonymous Coward

They've got two hopes. The data protection act very clearly defines what is classed as "personal" information, and your shopping history, once anonymised, ain't it. Besides, just about every major UK-based website has had the requisite "BY USING THIS SITE YOU AGREE TO OUR COOKIES" notification popup in place for the best part of a year now.

0
0
Bronze badge

Are these people really saying that they deserve financial compensation for this?

Sounds like the UK is getting like the US where people sue for the slightest thing. We are going to need warnings on microwaves not to put your pets inside soon

18
0
Bronze badge
Unhappy

We have warnings on some beaches that sand is dangerous and can kill - because who knew that digging a hole in sand and crawling inside it could suffocate you :/

Additionally we have these wondeful LED road signs that impart such useful information as "Caution Low Temperature" and "Snow Forecast" - I'm pretty sure we all have the ability to determine if the air feels cold and therefore there is likely to be cold and perhaps icy roads, and I'm fairly sure when we see snow on the ground - we can suspect that there will be snow on roads - but my favourites are things like "Winter Driving, drive to road conditions" - which suggests that we don't drive to the road conditions unless told to. There is also a drink that comes in a carton which has "instructions for use" and a push chair with instructions on how to fold which begin - "Step 1, Remove baby" - the saddest part of this whole post though - is that these instructions came about because someone, somewhere was stupid enough - that they honestly didn't know :/

7
0
Silver badge
Trollface

Outrageous!

...things like "Winter Driving, drive to road conditions" - which suggests that we don't drive to the road conditions unless told to.

Hear, hear! How dare they suggest such a thing, when the reality is that most of us don't drive to road conditions even when told to!?

By the way, have you ever seen the instructions on a packet of toothpicks?

1
0
Silver badge

I have a shirt that tells me "Do not iron while wearing" I have peanut butter cookies that "MAY CONTAIN NUTS".

0
0
Meh

DNA said it best....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonko_the_Sane#Wonko_the_Sane

When Wonko saw instructions on how to use a toothpick on a packet of toothpicks, he became convinced that the world had gone crazy and so built the house as an asylum for it,

0
0
Silver badge

Tom 35, don't forget the milk. Allergy info: contains milk.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

"I have a shirt that tells me "Do not iron while wearing" I have peanut butter cookies that "MAY CONTAIN NUTS"."

All because of our litigious brothers across the pond. Their evil ways rub off on those who don't want to earn a living in the UK, and go scrounging for money.

0
0
Paris Hilton

A peanut is not a nut.

The more you know and all that.

3
0
zb

I doubt if anyone expects any compensation, it is probably enough for the claimants that Google incurs a large legal bill, some bad publicity and a spell on the naughty step. . Oh, did I forget the claimant's lawyers? No doubt any settlement will include a massive wodge of moolah for them. These things are usually lawyer driven.

So yes, you are right, the UK is getting like the US :(

0
0
Bronze badge

As someone else has already mentioned the Cookie law - I thought I would just pop in.

I'm much more concerned that us smaller websites have had to bend over backwards to implement what is arguably the most stupid tech law ever conceived - while I still see no signs of the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter complying with it - they have a UK presence and they certainly have an EU presence - we are now almost a year into the new law - and I see no sign that they even plan to comply with it..... I take it - it is just small websites that are going to be fined for not complying then?

4
1

We moved our hosts outside the UK

... if it is hosted outside the uk, then you don't need to worry about the silly cookie law.

Holland has good latency to the UK.

0
4
Silver badge

Re: We moved our hosts outside the UK

"... if it is hosted outside the uk, then you don't need to worry about the silly cookie law.

Holland has good latency to the UK"

Isn't Holland in the EU, and it was an EU directive? I haven't checked, maybe it wasn't implemented in such a way in the Netherlands, but it might just be a matter of time.

1
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: We moved our hosts outside the UK

Two things: firstly, you obviously don't seem to know much about jurisdiction in the EU; secondly, the UK law is only the national version of EU-wide legislation. But, please do carry on with your feckless approach to stuff. You might even want to start a Facebook group about it.

1
0
FAIL

Re: We moved our hosts outside the UK

That is the dumbest reply to a post I have ever seen on ElReg - you realise that Dutch regulations on Cookies are actually more strict than UK and require EXPLICIT consent (opt-in) whereas ICO in the UK is allowing implied consent (opt-out).

Bloody fool.

7
1
Silver badge
Devil

Re: We moved our hosts outside the UK

That is the dumbest reply to a post I have ever seen on ElReg

Well, while it's pretty stupid it's nowhere near as dumb as some of the stuff we get. Some of our commentards are, er, really gifted when it comes to getting the wrong end of the stick.You obviously don't read enough. Don't worry, stick around long enough and you'll soon lose the will to live and any hope you might have left for humanity!

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Google = Evil

This is the Google MO.

Break the law openly, brazenly and on a massive scale, thus rendering the law useless. Why should anyone else comply when the web's largest presence openly flaunts the law.

No fine can hurt them, because the politicos who make the law simply do not understand, or have been paid to misunderstand.

1
1

Re: We moved our hosts outside the UK

hehe I have been a regular reader here since oooo '97ish and I have seen a lot of trolls come and go in the comments but rarely see genuinely dumb responses like the fool above.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: We moved our hosts outside the UK

I have seen a lot of trolls come and go in the comments but rarely see genuinely dumb responses like the fool above

I fear it's you who is the fool here. For what I've seen so far of Google, that's EXACTLY what they do.

Take, for instance, their statement that the cookie doesn't contain personal information which is completely irrelevant. That's almost as bad as the BS they put in their mail service explanation that has to explain away that they are in essence running a service that as far as I can tell is fully in breach of privacy laws (actually they already have convictions for that outside Europe, so it's only a matter of time before it hits them in the EU too).

A cookie doesn't have to CONTAIN personal information to violate Data Protection, all it needs to do is to act as a reference to such information which allows to tie together various otherwise separate bits of information.

It's exactly this kind of bullshit that has made me distrust *anything* that Google does. Their preference to serve up large gobs of BS instead of coming right out indicates to me an attitude of "as long as we're getting away with it it's legal" instead of looking what the law actually says.

Which is the point the original OP made.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Probably the tip of the iceberg from Google - after all they make money by selling access to you / your data.

2
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.