Results 1 to 16 of 16
20-11-2012, 06:18 PM #1
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
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.
20-11-2012, 06:29 PM #2
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.
20-11-2012, 06:48 PM #3
I'd sell my privacy for that price.
Hell, there are few things I wouldn't do for $22 million...
20-11-2012, 06:51 PM #4
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...
20-11-2012, 06:51 PM #5
I'm throwing my privacy at the screen, but the millions don't appear!
20-11-2012, 07:02 PM #6
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
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.
20-11-2012, 07:07 PM #7
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 07:10 PM.
20-11-2012, 07:12 PM #8
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
20-11-2012, 08:23 PM #9
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.
20-11-2012, 10:02 PM #10
20-11-2012, 10:32 PM #11
20-11-2012, 11:00 PM #12
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
20-11-2012, 11:39 PM #13
21-11-2012, 01:23 PM #14
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
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.
21-11-2012, 01:24 PM #15
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
21-11-2012, 07:16 PM #16
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?