Google fined $22.5M for privacy 'misrepresentations' | August 10, 2012 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

News - August 10, 2012

Google fined $22.5M for privacy 'misrepresentations'

Search giant charged with planting cookies on computers of Apple's Safari users

by Gennady Sheyner

Google will be required to pay a $22.5 million penalty after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charged the Mountain View-based Internet search giant with misrepresenting its privacy settings to its users.

This story contains 381 words.

Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.

If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.

Log in     Subscribe

Staff Writer Gennady Sheyner can be emailed at gsheyner@paweekly.com.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by blame
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 9, 2012 at 10:25 am

I blame Apple, not Google, for Apple's insecure web browser.


Like this comment
Posted by wow
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Aug 9, 2012 at 11:16 am

Of course you do. Google's wilful and fraudulent misrepresentations are entirely beside the point. Why should Google be penalized for lying to the FTC. Just because Google circumvented apple's privacy settings is also beside the point.

The point is Apple is the culprit because...because... because you say so. Let's not let the facts stand in the way of who we want to blame.


Like this comment
Posted by Wondering?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 9, 2012 at 3:06 pm

Maybe it's too late to be asking this question, but what gives the FTC the power over the "planting of cookies" on my, or anyone's machines? Is there Federal legislation effectively declaring "cookies" some sort of "controlled substance"?

Or is the FTC off sticking its nose in somewhere it doesn't really have the authority to be?


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.