Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    224

    U.S Judge puts a price-tag on your privacy = $22.5million

    Yep. Just $22.5million is all your privacy is worth, when it comes to google and the FTC.
    Google was caught bypassing Safari's security settings to track users via cookies. Read the full thing below and weep how low we value our own privacy these days.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Goo...ine,19182.html

  2. #2
    Lesser Hivemind Node Kodeen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    967
    Hell, seeing as how I don't have much expectations to privacy anyway, just give me the $22 million and I'll sign a waiver or something.

  3. #3
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus SirKicksalot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,686
    I'd sell my privacy for that price.
    Hell, there are few things I wouldn't do for $22 million...

  4. #4
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,333
    The FTC issues their largest fine ever and you are still bitching?

    What do you think would be fair? Should they just say "You broke the rules. So we're going to ignore all precedents and just take away the entire company?"

    Maybe a larger fine would be better, but that just makes precedent for MORE stupidity in the form of wild inflation. Random "consumer watchdog" group suggested something in the billions.

    So we go from a high of <22.5 million to a 4 billion dollar fine. Yes, that makes a LOT of sense legally...
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  5. #5
    Lesser Hivemind Node Gorzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    782
    I'm throwing my privacy at the screen, but the millions don't appear!

  6. #6
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Random "consumer watchdog" group suggested something in the billions.
    Wow, you are very ignorant aren't you...
    Do you know what the Consumer Watchdog organization is?
    I suggest you go and get a clue first before you spew ignorant comments like this in some kind of knee-jerk, frothing-at-the-mouth retort as if you were a teenage kid who's favourite rock band was just called trash.

  7. #7
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,333
    Quote Originally Posted by guitarxe View Post
    Wow, you are very ignorant aren't you...
    Do you know what the Consumer Watchdog organization is?
    I suggest you go and get a clue first before you spew ignorant comments like this in some kind of knee-jerk, frothing-at-the-mouth retort as if you were a teenage kid who's favourite rock band was just called trash.
    Apologies, that was meant to say "lawyer"

    Still doesn't change the argument, but feel free to isolate that part rather than to discuss why there should be 160x increase in the fines issued by the FTC for this.

    Even if this were Apple (and boy howdy do I dislike Apple :p) I don't think such a fine would be justice. Such a fine would just be further screwing up the legal system to, ironically, placate knee-jerk reactions.

    Also, general rule of thumb: Attack arguments, not people. If you do the former, you actually come across sounding like you have two brain cells. If you do the latter... well, you already provided such an eloquent description of people who resort to that :p

    Protip: Do both. Attack the argument AND the person simultaneously. Just make sure that you are primarily attacking the argument, and that the person aspect is a "witty bonus". And if you can't pull off witty, at least try to make it funny :p
    Last edited by gundato; 20-11-2012 at 08:10 PM.
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  8. #8
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus mashakos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Big corporation gets a speeding ticket it can easily afford to pay for while running roughshod over our human rights.
    So what's new?
    Steam profile
    PC Specs: I have a big e-peen

  9. #9
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Berzee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,257
    There are sort of...differing levels of privacy though, you know?

    Like -- the thing that happened with this Google +1 button thing has exactly one ramification: advertisers who showed you a particular advertisement previously, will have a record of what ads they've shown you next time you hit that site.

    Personally, "this user's browser reports that they have seen our advertisement before" doesn't feel like a hugely offensive invasion of my privacy compared to, say, anything else. What makes it funnier is that this Invasion Of Privacy only happens (it sounds like?) for advertisements that you are "+1"ing.

    So what we have (correct me if wrong) in this case is "When I share a website that I like on my social network, my browser now has a record that I clicked that thing, which the website that I like will know about later."

    Not the sort of thing you would *want* to happen without your knowledge, I s'poze, but it's not exactly Google scribbling down a journal of the things I mutter to myself in the mirror every morning as I splash my eyes awake.
    Support for my all-pepperjack-cheese food bank charity drive has been lukewarm at best.

  10. #10
    Why post this to PC Gaming?

  11. #11
    Lesser Hivemind Node strange headache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by Kodeen View Post
    Hell, seeing as how I don't have much expectations to privacy anyway, just give me the $22 million and I'll sign a waiver or something.
    This 10char.

  12. #12
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Tritagonist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    1,589
    It seems to me, from reading that article, that the FTC was mostly annoyed that Google wasn't entirely truthful about "the extent to which consumers can exercise control over the collection of their information". Seems pretty innocuous in the grand scheme of things.

    Meanwhile, in other parts of the United States.
    "He has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to
    the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free". ~
    Luke 4:18

  13. #13
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Berzee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Bakke View Post
    Why post this to PC Gaming?
    He's a maverick, a broken arrow, and a little bit unhinged.
    Support for my all-pepperjack-cheese food bank charity drive has been lukewarm at best.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    781
    The $22.5 million is a fine from the FTC, not a civil claim. The purpose of fines is to deter, not to compensate. $22.5 mil isn't going to deter Google.

  15. #15
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by SirKicksalot View Post
    I'd sell my privacy for that price.
    Hell, there are few things I wouldn't do for $22 million...
    agree. you can buy back your privacy if you have that much money i guess.lol

  16. #16
    Lesser Hivemind Node NecroKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    559
    A fine is only effective if it outweighs the benefits of breaking the rules; 22,5 million dollars, that's nothing for Google.
    But where did he come from, this fleck of spite in an abandoned paradise?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •